House of Commons
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 12 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, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
1. What discussions he had with the President of the People’s Republic of China on human rights in Tibet.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
During last month’s state visit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Xi Jinping discussed the importance of ongoing dialogue on issues about which we disagree, including human rights. I set out the Government’s position on Tibet, including our human rights concerns, in a parliamentary debate secured by the hon. Gentleman in June.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that the UN Committee against Torture met last week in Geneva to review China’s record, and it expressed serious concerns over China’s continued use of torture to extract confessions from prisoners. In response, the Chinese delegation denied all allegations of endemic, systematic acts of torture. China also claims to hold no political prisoners at all. Will the Minister or the Foreign Secretary ensure that the routine use of torture in Chinese jails, including in Tibet, is raised with China at the next UN Human Rights Council?
Mr Swire
We would normally raise such matters regarding Tibet or anywhere else. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on keeping Tibet at the forefront of the House’s deliberations, and there have been two debates on the issue, most recently in June and before that in December. The recent state visit was a huge success. President Xi acknowledged the importance of improving protection for human rights and said that China was ready for increased exchanges and co-operation on that issue with the UK. The UK is one of the few countries in the world to have an annual human rights dialogue with China, and that is an incredibly important architecture within which to press the Chinese and raise such matters. We shall continue to do so.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister will recall that in an exchange on 22 October he confirmed that China is ready to co-operate with the UK and other countries in the area of human rights. Were matters such as Tibet and the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, the alleged forced harvesting of organs, and the harassment of Ai Weiwei discussed with the Chinese President when he visited the UK?
Mr Swire
The right hon. Gentleman credits me with almost total recall, but our position has been consistent. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issues of Falun Gong and organ harvesting with State Councillor Yang Jiechi during the UK-China strategic dialogue in Beijing in August. We have raised specific concerns about reports of organ harvesting on numerous occasions, including in response to a written question on 15 July.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What discussions have taken place to promote the importance of the freedom of religious expression in Tibet, in particular among the Uyghur people?
Mr Swire
We raise those issues consistently with the Chinese within the framework of the UK-Chinese human rights dialogue, and our annual human rights report is updated every six months. Some comments about the recent state visit have implied that our relationship with the Chinese is purely one of commerce, but that is wrong. This is not a binary relationship. As we get closer to the Chinese and are seen as a good partner to China on the world stage, and in terms of inward investment and trade between both countries, we can discuss such matters more maturely than many other countries can. It boils down to whether we believe in megaphone diplomacy, or in getting alongside the people we are trying to talk to, and pointing out that the way to do things is the way that we do things.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
2. What steps his Department is taking to support political stability in Tunisia, Libya and the surrounding region.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
The UK is actively supporting UN efforts, led by the Secretary-General’s new special representative, Martin Kobler, to reach a lasting political agreement in Libya. We are helping Tunisia and other north African countries to build legitimate, inclusive institutions and develop their economies, as well as strengthening their counter-terrorism capabilities. I will visit Tunisia soon to discuss the effectiveness of UK political and security co-operation with that country, and I plan to meet UN Special Representative Kobler later this week.
Jeremy Quin
Does the Foreign Secretary agree it is in our interests for countries at risk of extremist infiltration, including those in north Africa, to receive advice, assistance and support in monitoring their borders, thereby helping to control them?
Mr Hammond
Yes, I agree. Since the Sousse attacks in Tunisia, we recognise that we need to focus a bit more attention on those countries that are, let us say, one step away from the chaos that is going on in Libya—countries that are making a success of things, but which still have some vulnerabilities and are being targeted by the extremists. We need to help them to build resilience against extremism.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary will know that Tunisia’s economy has been badly hit by the collapse of its tourist industry. What steps is he taking to encourage other countries, particularly those in the Gulf states, to assist the Tunisians in maintaining both economic and political stability?
Mr Hammond
First, we need to work with the Tunisians to improve security so that the tourist trade can resume as soon as is practical. The EU is looking at the relaxation of olive oil quotas to allow Tunisia greater access to the European market for olive oil, a product it has aplenty, if it is able to export it. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), visited Tunisia a couple of weeks ago and discussed with the Tunisians a 49-point plan to support their economy. We are, with the French, seeking to act as cheerleaders for support within the European Union for the Tunisian economy.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should take this opportunity to encourage institutions such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and a range of other organisations and institutions in our western allies—the United States, France and Germany, to name but three—to ensure political stability and democracy is brought to Tunisia, Libya, and, hopefully, other north African countries?
Mr Hammond
Yes, I agree. Of course, Tunisia is ahead of the game, as it were. It is one of the success stories of the 2011 Arab spring, with a functioning constitution and democratic elections. All of that is challenged, however, by the desire of the extremists to target such success stories. We must stand with them.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Foreign Secretary will join us in expressing outrage at the terrorist atrocity in Mali in which 22 people, citizens of Mali, China, Russia, Belgium, Burkina, Israel, Lebanon, the US and Senegal, were slaughtered. Given that we now see al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and Daesh-affiliated organisations operating across the Sahel and the Maghreb, including in Tunisia and Libya, will the Government say more about their regional approach to working with countries across the Sahara and the Sahel to tackle terrorism?
Mr Hammond
We are working with a wide range of countries, including, crucially, Nigeria. This is, of course, a pincer movement from Nigeria in the south and the Sahel in the north. We are working with a full range of countries. I would say, however, that if we are to stop the spread of terrorism, we have to tackle it at its heart, and its heart is in Raqqa, Syria.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The security situation in Sinai is a threat to Egypt and other countries in north Africa, as well as to the coalition against ISIL, as we saw with the recent terrorist attack. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the security situation in the Sinai region and its impact on political stability?
Mr Hammond
The security situation in Sinai is very serious. The Egyptian army is engaged in combat with terrorist groups across Sinai. The Foreign Office travel advice recommends against all travel to Sinai, except the area around Sharm el-Sheik. Sharm el-Sheik is itself still considered safe for travel, although travel through the airport is advised against. We seek to work with the Egyptian authorities to deal with the terrorist challenge it is facing in Sinai.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Does the Foreign Secretary believe that further air strikes alone will move us towards political stability in the wider region? Perhaps he will take this opportunity to address the efficacy of military intervention in Syria and how it will contribute to a wider initiative to end civil war and secure reconstruction. Does he have a plan for securing the peace that includes measures to close down all sources of finance and new recruits to the terrorist cult Daesh, including a Government inquiry into its financing? Why are the Government attempting to make a case for war while failing to address the clear and present need for a long-term, comprehensive peace plan?
Mr Hammond
The short answer, as we have acknowledged many times, is that, no, airstrikes alone will not destroy Daesh—as the hon. Lady implores me to describe it from the Dispatch Box—but they have to be part of the overall solution. On her other specific inquiries, if she will wait until Thursday, she can look forward to hearing from the Prime Minister how this fits into our broader strategy.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his response, and I wait in anticipation for Thursday’s statement. I am also grateful for his using “Daesh”; I wish that other Members would follow suit. As we understand it, in Syria today, the USA is bombing Daesh and does not support the Assad Government; Russia, which supports the Assad Government, says it is bombing Daesh but is also targeting rebels; Turkey is bombing Daesh but is also targeting Kurdish forces in the north; while the Australians, Canadians, Saudi Arabians and others are supporting the USA. If military action forces Daesh to give up territory in Syria and Iraq in the coming weeks and months, which force does he expect to take its place on the ground?
Mr Hammond
Again, the short answer is that the hon. Lady has correctly identified that the situation is extremely complex. As the Prime Minister has said, we have to resolve these two things in parallel: we have to get a political solution to the civil war in Syria so that we can get everybody dealing with the challenge posed by Daesh, instead of fighting each other, and that is what our comprehensive strategy will seek to achieve.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
3. What recent discussions he has had with the Governments of British overseas territories with financial centres on central registers of beneficial ownership.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)
I discussed progress on central registers of beneficial ownership with the Premiers of the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda yesterday and will have a further opportunity to do so when they are in London next week for the joint ministerial council.
Dr Monaghan
In April 2014, the Prime Minister wrote to the overseas territories:
“The rest of the world is watching us closely and public registries will demonstrate the sincerity of our commitment to improve corporate behaviour and set a new standard for transparency of company ownership.”
It is clear he wants overseas territories to have public registers of beneficial ownership. Will the Minister ensure that overseas territories adopt public registers or, at the very least, ensure access for the public in line with the fourth EU anti-money laundering directive?
James Duddridge
The hon. Gentleman should give the overseas territories credit where credit is due. Progress has been made towards the greater use of central registers, and we are currently working on security and police forces’ access to them, but, in the longer term, he is entirely right: ultimately, we will have to move in the direction of public access to that information. But the overseas territories are making progress.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
What progress have the British overseas territories made with the UK on the exchange of tax information?
James Duddridge
Clear progress has already been made. The territories have already fulfilled their commitments on automatic tax exchange, and this was achieved working in partnership with them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
4. What support the Government are providing to countries neighbouring Syria to help displaced people.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
15. What support the Government are providing to countries neighbouring Syria to help displaced people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
One of the five principal strands of the international counter-ISIL strategy is humanitarian and stabilisation support. The UK has been at the forefront of providing humanitarian support, having committed more than £1 billion to assisting host countries that have opened their doors to refugees fleeing Assad’s regime and terrorist organisations, including al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and Daesh.
Simon Hoare
Will the Minister, while carrying on this important work, work flat out with colleagues to build a robust and energised—there is the key point: energised—consensus against ISIL among the other countries of the middle east?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must be energised. The Government are committed to working with the now 65-strong counter-ISIL coalition on our five-point strategy: defeating Daesh on the battlefield; cutting off its funding streams; stemming the flow of foreign fighters; countering the online messaging; and providing the humanitarian and stabilisation support I have already mentioned.
Mary Robinson
Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do all we can to support the people living in refugee camps and the host communities in the region and to ensure they can return to their homes and rebuild their lives in safety and security?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have done a huge amount in providing stabilisation and humanitarian support to do just that—to allow people to stay in the region, but also to help the vulnerable who need to be taken away from the region and supported, which is why we are taking 20,000 refugees here in the UK.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The issue for Syrian refugees in the region is that they are not allowed to work legally when they are in neighbouring countries. What are the Government doing to support countries such as Jordan economically, so that that can change and refugees may work in such countries legally?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I visited Zaatari camp, which contains 100,000 refugees. What the hon. Gentleman said is an issue, and causes a bit of tension locally with people in the camp willing to be paid less, but wanting to work. We are working with Jordan and the United Nations to provide employment programmes. The skills can be kept up, so that when the guns finally fall silent in Syria we can transfer those skill sets back into the country.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
When I visited the Zaatari refugee camp, I saw at first hand the amount of aid that the UK Government are giving to help the situation on the ground in Syria, as well as in Lebanon, Turkey and elsewhere. The UK is the second-highest donor to those countries. Will the Minister update us on what progress has been made on getting other neighbouring countries and other partners to make their proper contribution to helping the humanitarian crisis in the region?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support. Sometimes the number of 20,000 refugees that the UK is taking is taken out of context in comparison with the work we are doing to support people such as those in the Zaatari camp. We are providing support to other countries, but we are also encouraging the neighbours. That is one reason why we are hosting a conference here in February, along with Kuwait, to encourage other countries to provide donations so that we can be ready for post-conflict reconstruction both in Iraq and in Syria.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
5. What discussions he has had with his Russian counterpart on the situation in Syria.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
I discussed the situation in Syria with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov at the two recent meetings of the International Syria Support Group in Vienna. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also discussed Syria with President Putin in the margins of the G20 summit in Antalya last weekend.
Mr Hammond
I think my hon. Friend well knows my views and those of the Prime Minister on this issue. We believe that it is morally unacceptable to outsource to others an action that is essential to the defence of the United Kingdom and UK citizens around the world. That is why we are seeking to build a consensus in this House for taking military action against Daesh in Raqqa.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On the situation in Syria, has the Foreign Secretary seen the letter in today’s The Times in which nearly 200 Islamic scholars have denounced ISIS terror in the strongest possible terms? That is the sort of propaganda we should use, and the Foreign Office should use it in different parts of the world. Should we not make it perfectly clear, as those scholars have, that the atrocities in Paris have nothing to do with the wicked west? We went to war over Kosovo in order to protect Muslims—and we were right to do so.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Our position is a moral one. We are defending the right of people—whether they be Christians, Yazidis, Jews or Muslims—to practise their religion freely against a tyranny that imposes its view by beheadings, rapes and mass deportations. We must end this terror. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that a vital tool in our armoury is the very substantial body of thoughtful, moderate Islamic scholarship around the world. We need to ensure—and when I say “we”, I mean all nations of good will, as this has to be led essentially by the Muslim countries of the world—that that moderate view prevails. We need to help the Muslims of the world reclaim their religion from the extremists.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of this morning’s appalling news that a Russian bomber has been shot down by a NATO country, Turkey? Is that not potentially extremely dangerous, given that nothing like that happened during the whole of the cold war period? If we are to get a solution in the north of Syria and Iraq, we have to look to building a moderate Sunni regime there. We may have to go back at the end of the war to redraw the boundaries drawn up by Sykes-Picot.
Mr Hammond
Our view, and the strong view of, I think, all our partners and allies, is that we need to preserve the territorial integrity of Syria. I can promise my hon. Friend that if we start opening up boundaries in the region, we will prolong the agony.
As for the reports that have been coming in this morning of the shooting down of what was possibly a Russian air force jet near the Turkish-Syrian border, we are seeking further details urgently in both Moscow and Ankara. Clearly this was potentially a serious incident, but I do not think it would be wise to comment any further until we have more certainty about the facts.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Following its shockingly brutal attacks in Paris, no one doubts that we must defeat Daesh in both Iraq and Syria, and that that must be linked to the urgent need for a peace plan to end the Syrian civil war. When does the Foreign Secretary expect a decision to be reached on which opposition groups will take part in the talks that are due to start on 1 January, and what is his current assessment of the chances of securing a ceasefire during the discussions about the formation of a transitional Government?
Mr Hammond
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, both those issues—the ceasefire and the definition of the opposition groups who will take part in the talks—have been at the heart of the International Syria Support Group’s work. Working groups have been tasked with drawing up an agreed list of opposition participants, and I hope that when the ISSG next meets—we expect it to do so during the second week of December—we shall be able to approve a list. However, I should emphasise that there are still some differences among members of the support group. The Russians and the Iranians do not necessarily take the same view of who is an acceptable interlocutor as many of our other partners.
Hilary Benn
The unanimous agreement of United Nations Security Council resolution 2249 last Friday was a significant moment in the fight against Daesh, because the world community has come together to fight this evil using, in the words of the resolution, “all necessary measures”. What is the Foreign Secretary’s latest assessment of how Daesh’s base in Syria is contributing to and co-ordinating threats both to its neighbours and to the rest of the world, as we have seen recently and tragically in the killings in France, the suicide bombings in Lebanon and Turkey, the blowing up of the Russian airliner, and, of course, the killing of British tourists in Tunisia?
Mr Hammond
As the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, there is no doubt that the head of this multi-tentacled monster is in Raqqa in Syria. Its logistics, its controlling brain and its strategic communications, which are extremely effective, are all run from that headquarters. We will not destroy it by cutting off its limbs; we can destroy it only by going for the head and the heart. I should add that while some of the activity that is being conducted around the world in the name of ISIL is clearly directed from Raqqa, in other cases it is inspired by ISIL propaganda but not directly controlled from Raqqa, so it is a mixture.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
6. What steps the Government are taking to encourage voter participation in the EU referendum.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Our immediate priority is to ensure that the European Union Referendum Bill passes into law, so that those who are eligible to vote can do so. The Government are, however, also committed to supporting efforts to maximise registration, and the Electoral Commission plans to launch a national public awareness campaign in the run-up to the referendum.
Steven Paterson
Given that even the unelected House of Lords is now calling for the voting franchise to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, and given the change in public attitudes, will the Government reconsider, and legislate for the extension of that franchise?
Mr Lidington
On three occasions, this House—the elected House—has voted against lowering the voting age to 16 for the referendum, and the Government will propose to overturn the latest amendment from the Lords. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a bit rich for him and his party to carp about the franchise, given that they voted against having a referendum at all.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister assure the House that following the completion of the Prime Minister’s renegotiations there will be more than sufficient time before the referendum itself to air arguments both for and against remaining in the EU?
Mr Lidington
I can assure my hon. Friend that there is going to be ample time for those arguments to be aired both in this House and outside.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
May I press the Minister a little further on the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds? The other place passed its amendment on this by a big majority on 18 November. There are rumours of disagreements within the Government and within the Cabinet on how to respond. The Prime Minister has so far left the door open to change in the questions he has been asked previously about this. We know that 16 and 17-year-olds are capable of understanding the issues and we know they are interested and want to take part, so why will the Minister not agree to the amendment and give 16 and 17-year-olds a proper say in the future of our country?
Mr Lidington
There are hon. Members in various parts of the House who champion the cause of reducing the voting age to 16, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the right time to debate that issue is during discussions on proposed legislation where such a change would apply to the franchise for all elections and referendums and not as a one-off tacked on to a Bill for a particular referendum.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
7. What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EU Foreign Affairs Council on the refugee crisis.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
As the hon. Lady can well imagine, I discuss the current migration crisis with my EU counterparts on a regular basis—for example at the Foreign Affairs Council last Monday in Brussels and when I met the Visegrad Group of EU countries in Prague the previous Friday. All of them agree now on the importance of a comprehensive approach to tackling the underlying causes of irregular migration, and the UK is playing a leading role in delivering this approach.
Carolyn Harris
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Can he share with us what progress has been made with our European colleagues to create simple and safe routes for refugees to be reunited with their families who have already found sanctuary in Britain?
Mr Hammond
The refugees we are mainly discussing in relation to the hon. Lady’s question about discussions with my EU colleagues are those arriving within the Schengen area. As Britain is not in the Schengen area, clearly those people would not be able to access the UK in the normal course of events, so their future will be within the Schengen area unless and until at some point in the quite far-off future they obtain EU citizenship.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain what more action can be taken to stop Assad’s murder of his own people, which together with ISIL terror, is contributing to the current refugee crisis?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly there is agreement across the EU that we need to address these issues upstream, and one of the most pressing upstream challenges is the civil war in Syria. As I have already said once this afternoon, the Prime Minister will set out our comprehensive approach to that problem—military, political and humanitarian—on Thursday.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
What part of the discussions at the EU Foreign Affairs Council has centred on the very real genocide that is happening, including in UNHCR refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and the Kurdish autonomous region, by radicalised Islamists linked to Daesh who are killing people—killing Christians—in those camps and driving them out of them?
Mr Hammond
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman candidly that that has not been the focus of the discussion in the Foreign Affairs Council about the migration crisis, but I am aware of concerns about what is going on in the camps. The UK’s approach is to invest heavily in providing safe and appropriate facilities for refugees in the region so they can return to Syria in due course, and we will continue to advocate that approach and encourage our EU partners to put more money into that effort.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
8. What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the proposals for EU reform in the Prime Minister’s letter of 10 November 2015 to the President of the European Council.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
9. What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the proposals for EU reform in the Prime Minister’s letter of 10 November 2015 to the President of the European Council.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had productive rounds of talks with every European leader and with the Presidents of the European Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission. The Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and I also maintain regular contact with our counterparts right across Europe.
Holly Lynch
Will the Minister go further and confirm that the Government will not seek to tear up hard-won employment rights as part of this renegotiation with the European Union?
Mr Lidington
We believe that our flexibility opt-out from the 48-hour week under the working time directive is important for keeping employment levels in this country high, compared with the tragic levels of unemployment in many other European nations, and we shall certainly be fighting very hard to ensure that we keep that opt-out.
Wayne David
Will the Minister confirm that no treaty changes will be secured before the referendum?
Mr Lidington
I set out the position on that in my statement and my subsequent answers a week ago. It is important that we secure a package of changes that will be seen by all as irreversible and as legally binding.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Government used to complain about Tony Blair giving the UK’s rebate back to the European Union, so why did the Prime Minister not ask for a reduction in our EU membership fee in his letter? Are the Government now happy that we gave up our rebate, or has the Prime Minister asked only for the things that he has already had agreed by the European Union, so that he can tell us that his negotiations have been a success—on the basis that if you ask for nothing and get nothing, it looks like a success?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend would do well to do as he has done before, and to applaud the Prime Minister’s success in getting the first-ever reduction in the EU’s multi-annual budget. I can assure my hon. Friend that the negotiations will be tough and, at times, difficult, but I am confident that they will end with a better set of relationships between this country and the EU.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
But surely it is the case that the very modest proposals set out in that letter are the only ones that the Government believe the rest of the European Union are prepared to agree to. That is why an end to free movement, which so many British people want to see, is not even going to be discussed.
Mr Lidington
We have made it clear that we want the freedom of movement for workers to be just that, and not a freedom to select the best welfare system anywhere in Europe. In our approach to this subject, we must also take into account the fact that hundreds of thousands of British citizens are able to work, study and live elsewhere in Europe.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to the previous question, will the issue of freedom of movement—the principle, not the detail—be discussed or not?
Mr Lidington
I have to ask the hon. Gentleman to re-read the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Donald Tusk last week. It makes it clear that, while we accept the principle of freedom of movement for workers, we want to secure changes to ensure that we can reduce the pull factors exerted by elements of our welfare system, which add to the migration into this country.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, if the bar is so high and so tough, what are the difficulties? What is the Prime Minister really going to fight for? What is the thing that is holding him back? Where is it? Come on! The bar is so low that this negotiation is just a joke.
Mr Lidington
I perhaps look forward to the day when my hon. Friend is able to join me at ministerial meetings in Europe, where he will see that the task of negotiating is not quite as easy as he made out in his question. I cannot give a running commentary on ongoing negotiations, but I remind him that President Tusk said that the British requests are tough and that it would be
“really difficult to find an agreement”.
That indicates that we have a real negotiation in front of us.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
10. What steps he plans to take to ensure that potential breaches of international humanitarian law by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen are investigated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Britain has made its support for President Hadi in Yemen very clear and recognised his legitimate request for military assistance in deterring the Houthi-Saleh aggression, which has compounded an already dire humanitarian situation. We are aware of reports of alleged violations of international humanitarian law, and both the Foreign Secretary and I have received repeated assurances from Saudi Arabia of compliance.
Martyn Day
Can the Minister give a timeline for the “proper investigations” pledged earlier this month into any breaches of humanitarian law in Yemen?
Mr Ellwood
These investigations must be concluded, they must be looked into and they will be ongoing. The situation on the ground is very difficult and, in many cases, we are unable to have access to verify what has happened. I am pleased to say that progress is being made by the UN envoy, Ismail Ahmed, in bringing the parties together in Geneva very shortly, and that is where we need to focus in terms of getting a ceasefire in place.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
The humanitarian consequences of the conflict in Yemen, a country I know well, are heart-rending. Does the Minister agree that international peace talks leading to a political settlement are the best way to bring an end to the humanitarian suffering and any potential breaches of international law in Yemen?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we are discussing important challenges in the middle east, but unfortunately the scale of the situation in Yemen is dire; 20 million people are facing famine and starvation, as there is a lack of oil, water and the support that they need. There is no governance there and until we have a ceasefire, the port of Hodeidah will not be able to be opened up to allow that humanitarian support to come into the country.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Human Rights Watch has documented 27 air strikes since 26 March that appear to have violated the laws of war in Yemen. On 11 November, the Foreign Secretary that he supported “proper investigations” into human rights violations from all sides in the Yemen conflict. Can the Minister therefore explain why the UK failed to support the Dutch at the last meeting of the UN Human Rights Council when they called for a credible investigation into these violations?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady raises important points. I met non-governmental organisations and had a round-table discussion on policy, and many of these issues were raised. As she states, there was an international discussion on this matter in that process. We have been wanting to encourage Saudi Arabia and other parties that are involved—it is not just the Saudis in this coalition, but 10 other countries—and we want these cases looked into efficiently and properly by the country itself.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
11. What assessment he has made of the prospects of defeating ISIL in Iraq.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
Since operations by the global coalition began last year, ISIL has lost more than 30% of the territory it once controlled in Iraq. Most recently, Kurdish forces retook Sinjar, and Iraqi security forces have taken Baiji and are preparing to take Ramadi. Slowly but surely, ISIL is being pushed back, and I am confident that it will be driven out of Iraq in time.
Stuart Andrew
As chair of the all-party group on Islamo- phobia, I do wish we would formally refer to these people as Daesh. As they are steadily pushed back in Iraq, does my right hon. Friend agree that cutting their supply lines with Syria will hasten its defeat and, importantly, bring about the restoration of Iraq’s territorial integrity.
Mr Hammond
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, the retaking of Sinjar is a very important step in that, as it sits astride the most important supply route from Raqqa into Iraq. Ultimately, we need not just to cut the supply lines, but to go to the heart and the head of the beast in Raqqa.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State regard Turkey as a reliable ally in the battle against ISIL, given that not only has it today shot down a Russian jet, even though the Russians are also trying to fight ISIL, but it is buying oil from ISIL to prop it up and it is bombing the Kurds, who are also fighting ISIL? This Syrian engagement is an almighty mess.
Mr Hammond
I see that old habits die hard, and that the hon. Gentleman remains an apologist for Russian actions. Turkey is an important NATO ally. It holds the key to a number of really very important questions, both in relation to the battle against ISIL and to the migration challenge that Europe faces, and it will remain a very important partner for this country and for the European Union.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
12. What steps the Government are taking to put in place a new political process in Syria.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
Following my recent discussions in Vienna, an International Syria Support Group will now meet on a regular basis, in parallel with Syrian-led discussions between the opposition and the regime facilitated by the UN, to take forward a transition process for that country. The UK will work with our international partners to maintain momentum in this important endeavour.
Oliver Dowden
Is it not clearer than ever that the presence of ISIS in Syria represents an immediate threat to our national security? Given that the UK has significant military assets that could make a significant contribution to the fight against ISIS, is it not incumbent on us in this House to support our allies, and our failure to do so would cause complete bewilderment on their part?
Mr Hammond
It is true that we do have military capabilities, in particular the precision weapons available on Tornado aircraft, that would make a difference to the military battle on the ground in Syria. It is incumbent on us—and we have accepted this challenge—not only to make the case for military intervention, but to set that case in a broader context of a comprehensive approach to the Syria problem. The Prime Minister has taken on himself the responsibility of delivering his comprehensive strategy to the House.
Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
It is ever more apparent that, unless we deal with the biggest recruitment sergeant for Daesh in Syria, namely the aerial bombardments and other abuses of civilians by the Assad regime, we will not tackle the cancer that is Daesh. Will the Secretary of State say a little more on how he plans to sequence and prioritise strategic UK engagement in efforts to bring about a ceasefire and political transition alongside a comprehensive plan to tackle Daesh?
Mr Hammond
Yes, we will do it through the International Syria Support Group that we have set up. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we will not get a ceasefire or the opposition groups working with the rump of regime forces against Daesh unless and until they can be clear that Assad is going at a clear and defined point in the transition process. At the moment, we do not have agreement across the ISSG, particularly with the Russians and the Iranians, about that point. That is where we have to go, and the fundamental thrust of all our discussions is around trying to get agreement on a route for an exit by Assad so that the rest of the pieces of this jigsaw can drop into place.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
13. What recent discussions he has had with (a) the Gulf Co-operation Council and (b) other Governments on plans to improve security in the middle east.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Given Britain’s strong strategic, diplomatic and economic ties with Gulf nations and other states in the middle east, both the Foreign Secretary and I regularly meet our counterparts to discuss a range of issues including security. In recent weeks, the UK hosted the Egyptian President here in London. The Foreign Secretary has visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. I have returned from Oman, and will shortly be heading to Kuwait—I say that hopefully, looking at the Whip on duty.
Sir Nicholas Soames
As we face an epidemic of jihadist violence, can my hon. Friend assure the House that, in his extensive and close dialogue with our Gulf friends and partners, he will continue to press on them that the funding by some of them of these dangerous jihadi organisations really must stop?
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the five key traits of the strategy is preventing the funding that is taking place that is keeping ISIL alive. It is important that all countries across the middle east in the coalition of 65 work hard to prevent that from happening.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
18. Will the Minister raise in his discussions the current terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians? Some 108 Israelis have been killed or injured by shootings and stabbings on the streets in recent weeks. Will he also condemn the incitement that goes with that, including the statement from the Palestinian cleric in Gaza who said that Jews should be turned into body parts to stab “the myths of the Talmud” out of their heads?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady raises a very serious point. Thankfully, in the past couple of weeks there has been a reduction in violence in the west bank. Since the start of the current spate of violence, we have spoken regularly with both sides—the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority—and we urgently need to de-escalate tensions and get all parties back to the table.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
14. What steps his Department is taking to prevent persecution of the Rohingya people in Burma.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I saw for myself in July the desperate plight of the Rohingya community. Alleviating that situation remains a priority for us. We take every opportunity to press the Burmese authorities to tackle the issue, and we will continue to press the incoming Government.
Rushanara Ali
Last week, a key National League for Democracy official said that the plight of the Rohingya people is not a priority. What discussions has the Minister had with the new leadership about the refugee crisis—there are 140,000 people in internally displaced camps, to which humanitarian institutions do not have sufficient access—and about reform of the discriminatory 1982 citizenship law?
Mr Swire
As I said in my written statement to the House on 20 November, the landmark elections on 8 November were
“a victory for the people of Burma”,—[Official Report, 20 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 25WS.]
notwithstanding the fact that the Rohingya were disfranchised from those elections. That is something that the incoming Government will have to deal with. I concur with what President Obama has said about the Rohingya in the past few days. Like him, we hope they will be
“treated fairly and justly in their own country”,
and we believe, as he does, that they are
“deserving of the world’s protection and the world’s support.”
The incoming Government in Burma are going to have an awful lot on their plate and will have to manage expectations. We stand ready to help them to do so, and addressing the grievances of the Rohingya people must be pretty near the top of that list.
Mr Speaker
I should tell the House that I have written to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, I hope with the concurrence of the House, to congratulate her and the National League for Democracy on their magnificent victory on 8 November. I am very grateful to the Minister for what he has just said.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
My priorities remain the struggle against violent extremist Islamism in all its forms, including our response to the recent despicable attacks in Paris and the middle east; the containment of Russian actions that threaten the international rules-based system; and the renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Decisions that have been taken in the strategic defence and security review will underpin the diplomacy that allows us to make effective progress in all of those areas, backing our undoubted soft power with hard power. Tomorrow I will travel to Malta for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and for the state visit of Her Majesty the Queen.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
T2. How does the strategic defence spending review provide the Foreign Office with new tools to deal with the situation in Syria, particularly relating to wider strategy and co-ordination?
Mr Hammond
I have said to my colleagues across Government, long before the publication of the SDSR yesterday, that the most important reinforcement our diplomacy could have is clear statements about this country’s determination to back its armed forces. We have done that, first with the commitment to 2% and then, in the SDSR, turning that commitment into specific programmes and plans that will deliver to our armed forces the capability we need to back our soft power with hard power.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
T6. I spent a lot of time over the weekend listening to people in Dudley tell me their views on Syria. On the whole, they said that they think there is a case for dealing with ISIL-Daesh, especially after the attacks in Tunisia and Paris, but they want to know exactly what practical difference Britain can make, how civilians will be protected, and whether there is a comprehensive plan to rebuild Syria afterwards, with a proper Government in place of Assad, who used chemical weapons on his people.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am glad to hear that he is carefully taking the pulse of his constituents. On the last point, as I have said several times already today, the Prime Minister will set out a comprehensive strategy. That is not just about military intervention, but about how we use that military intervention to achieve the political solution we need in the wider conflict in Syria.
On the specific military point, the UK does have capabilities that will make a difference. The dual-mode Brimstone missile on our Tornado aircraft is a precision weapon unlike anything that any of the other coalition allies are able to deploy. That in itself, because of its precision and its low payload, will ensure minimisation of collateral damage and collateral casualties. That is one of the reasons our allies are so keen that we take part in this campaign.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
T3. There has been another weekend of deadly terror attacks on Israeli citizens, including a brutal stabbing yesterday. Will the Foreign Secretary condemn those attacks, and does he agree that sanctioned incitement to commit terror must end?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I articulated in a previous answer, we need to get all parties back to the table. Unfortunately, it seems that the planets are misaligned at the moment. We need to reconfigure and ensure that all parties are able to come back and prevent the scale of violence from increasing.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
T10. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that genuine law-abiding refugees leaving Syria are not locked out of the asylum process as a result of border measures being introduced across the EU after the brutal attacks in Paris?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Clearly it is a matter for each member state of the European Union and other European countries to determine their own border controls. The way forward has to be for asylum seekers to be properly assessed and screened at the first safe country they go to and for us to tackle the problem in the camps in the near east, so that people get some assurance of a decent life and opportunities for education for their children there rather than hazarding this appallingly dangerous voyage to Europe.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
T4. I gather that I have been successful in securing a debate next Monday on Britain’s role in the middle east. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in order that we play a constructive role in dealing with ISIS and other instabilities in the region we need a comprehensive strategy towards the middle east as a whole, not just Syria?
Mr Philip Hammond
Yes, I do agree. The Government are working up a Gulf strategy looking at how the UK will engage with this very important region—important for our security and for our prosperity as well—over the next five to 10 years.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that defeating Daesh abroad requires rock-solid unity at home? Britain’s Muslim community are part of our pillar of strength. Will he join me in deploring yesterday’s headline in The Sun which sought to cast doubt on that unity of purpose? Britain’s Muslim community hate Daesh and want it defeated, and headlines like that in The Sun yesterday sow division when what we need is unity.
Mr Hammond
It is absolutely clear to me that the overwhelming majority of the Muslim population here in the UK and indeed across the Muslim world deplore what is going on and are sickened by the fact that it is being done ostensibly in their name. They are very clear that their religion does not in any way support or authorise the actions being carried out by Daesh, and we should help them to reclaim their religion from the terrorists and the extremists.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
T5. Improving economic ties between the UK and sub-Saharan Africa is important, so what are the Government’s objectives at the global African investment summit next week?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that economic development is central to everything that we do. Ahead of the global African investment summit I will be meeting a collection of Presidents, Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers at Lancaster House, to look at economic development and at working with those countries to develop their businesses alongside British business, to grow Africa out of poverty.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has several times today mentioned the need for a comprehensive strategy. We have heard before about financial sanctions. Will he update the House on what conversations he has had with counterparts in the US and the EU about stopping the supply of cash and financial services to Daesh?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the fight is not only on the battlefield but in cutting down on finances. At the working groups where we discuss these matters we are looking to freeze accounts. Huge amounts of work have been done through the financial services authorities to identify the flow of funds coming from large donations from individuals, but we are also looking at the money streams coming from Daesh itself as it sells exports, antiquities and oils. We are winning this, and that is reflected in the fact that the amount that foreign fighters get on a monthly basis has been reduced because the funding streams into Daesh are being reduced.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
T8. Will the Government support all efforts to address the increasing instability in Burundi, which affects not just its own people but the entire region?
James Duddridge
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the situation in Burundi. It is important that there is a regional solution, and I have had discussions with the Rwandan Foreign Minister and the new Tanzanian Government, which have engaged the African Union and the EU. We got over a difficult moment a few weeks ago, but this is still a matter of grave concern, and I have had a number of frank and open conversations with the Burundian Foreign Minister. Indeed, I sent him an open letter, as did several members of the international community.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates that Russian air strikes have killed 400 civilians, 97 of whom were children. When the Foreign Secretary meets Foreign Minister Lavrov in a couple of weeks will he urge him to refocus those air strikes away from the opposition armies that are fighting Assad’s reign of terror towards the terrorists who brought down that Russian airliner?
Mr Philip Hammond
That is absolutely right. That is exactly what we have urged the Russians to do. If they want to fight ISIL we are happy to work with them, but at the moment a significant proportion—the majority, in fact—of their airstrikes are directed at the moderate opposition fighting Assad. In fairness, I should say that since the Russians acknowledged that it almost certainly was terrorist action that brought down that airliner they have directed a larger proportion of their strikes against ISIL-held territory.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
T9. Can my hon. Friend provide any further detail on discussions that he has had with the Iraqi Government about ensuring that measures are taken to promote security and enhance Iraq’s economic regeneration in areas that have been liberated from ISIL’s control?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the focus should be on supporting Iraq. Unfortunately, many Sunnis in Iraq still believe that they are not properly represented in Baghdad. We are working with Prime Minister Abadi to encourage laws on the national guard and on financial services to go through so that Sunnis have a place and are represented properly in Baghdad.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the Under-Secretary for writing to me about my Yemeni constituents. I read the Home Office advice to which he directed me, but does he agree that it does not inspire confidence that the Home Office managed to mis-translate “Médecins Sans Frontières”? Will he meet me and the Home Office to discuss that further?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that matter, and I should be delighted to meet her to discuss it in more detail.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
The world’s attention is rightly on the middle east and Syria, but there is an ongoing situation in Ukraine. Has my right hon. Friend made a recent assessment of the situation in Ukraine, and has he had any conversations with his Russian counterparts?
Mr Lidington: We remain concerned about the situation in Ukraine. I was last there in early October, when I met the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and other Ukrainian leaders and parliamentarians. The latest situation is that there has been an upsurge of fighting in certain locations around Donetsk, and the key thing is to use all diplomatic energies to ensure that the Minsk process is followed through to the end, and that all parts of it are completed.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
We are right not to be part of Schengen, and we are right to call for reform, but does not the invoking of the EU mutual defence clause remind us why we have to be part of a reformed EU as well as part of NATO?
Mr Lidington
What France has done by invoking that article in the treaty is ask other member states—and crucially not the European institutions—to come to its assistance in all possible ways, to react to the terrorist onslaught on Paris the other week. It is important that we bear in mind that that treaty article refers to the need for the EU always to co-ordinate its work with that of NATO.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the former Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, was robust in his support of self-determination for the people of the Falkland Islands. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity when Mr Trudeau visits this week to emphasise how grateful we are for the Canadians’ support for the Falkland Islands, and to ask whether the policy will remain the same under this premiership?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
My hon. Friend can be reassured that we expect the same from Prime Minister Trudeau, who is on his way to London to meet our Prime Minister and Her Majesty before travelling on to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Valetta. We expect exactly the same relationship—it is an ancient and potent relationship between ourselves and Canada. My hon. Friend will be aware that there has been an election in Argentina and we look forward to working with the new Government of Argentina who, we hope, will not demonstrate the bullying and bellicosity shown by the former Government of Argentina to the people of the Falkland Islands.
Petition
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I am delighted to present this petition. One of the privileges of being a Member of Parliament is the people one meets. I was privileged to meet a young lady from my constituency called Emma Donaldson, who is a vociferous and tenacious campaigner for disabled rights.
Emma has a great social life, despite being in a wheelchair, and has many friends not only in my constituency, but all over Nottinghamshire. To see some of those friends, she wants to get on a train at Hucknall in my constituency and get off at Kirkby-in-Ashfield in the neighbouring constituency of Ashfield. To her frustration, she is unable to do so because the train station at Kirkby-in-Ashfield does not have disabled access. That means that she has to go on to Mansfield and get a bus or taxi back to visit her friends.
Many of the constituents of Sherwood, when we put this matter to them, found it amazing that in 2015 there are railway stations at which disabled access is very poor. In addition to this petition, there are 500 signatures on another petition that we have collated for Nottinghamshire County Council and Network Rail to draw attention to the fact that the disabled access at Kirkby-in-Ashfield station, in particular, is very poor.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put measures in place to ensure that the platform at Kirkby-in-Ashfield train station is accessible to wheelchair users.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the Sherwood constituency,
Declares that the platform at Kirkby-in-Ashfield train station is not accessible to wheelchair users; further that this is discriminatory and adversely affects the quality of life of those who require a wheelchair to get around as it prevents them from being able to travel in a dignified and independent fashion; further that the platform at Kirkby-in-Ashfield train station should be fully accessible to all train users; and further that another local petition on this matter was signed by 472 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put measures in place to ensure that the platform at Kirkby-in-Ashfield train station is accessible to wheelchair users.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001560]
Points of Order
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week at Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister told the House that
“we have seen an increase of 3,800 in the number of neighbourhood officers over the Parliament and a 31% cut in crime.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 665.]
On the 3,800 figure, in 2012 the Government lifted the ring-fencing of the neighbourhood policing budget, despite warnings from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that it would be the area most at risk from a cut of 25% in the last Parliament. Crucially, the Home Office figures prayed in aid by the Prime Minister are a consequence of the subsequent recategorisation of officers on response as having a neighbourhood function. It is not a genuine increase in neighbourhood policing. In truth, the Government’s own figures show 17,000 police officers gone—12,000 from the frontline—and 4,500 police community support officers gone.
On the crime figures, I can do no better than quote from a Government exercise co-ordinated by the national fraud co-ordinator, in which he says that the results of the next crime survey of England and Wales will show a 40% increase in crime. I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that on matters such as the police, crime and national security, it is essential that the deliberations of this House are informed by the facts. Has the Prime Minister indicated his preparedness to come to the House and put the record straight?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order and for giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it. The short answer is that I have not received any indication that the Prime Minister proposes to come to the House to correct the record. It is, of course, the responsibility of every right hon. and hon. Member to ensure the veracity of what he or she says. In the event that any Member thinks that he or she has erred, that Member has the responsibility to put the record straight. More widely, I know the House will understand that disagreement about statistics is part of the currency of political debate, in which the hon. Gentleman is a practised and dextrous expert. If there is an Opposition day ere long, I have a hunch that we will hear the sonorous tones of the hon. Gentleman, very likely from his vantage point on the Opposition Front Bench. Meanwhile, he has had a bite of the cherry and I hope he was satisfied with the taste.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Children’s Commissioner for England, Mrs Anne Longfield, today published a report, “Protecting children from harm”, which outlines the prevalence of child sex abuse in this country, where only one in eight cases of child sex abuse is reported to the authorities. Would it be in order to ask a Minister from the Department for Education to respond urgently on the very important matter of the prevalence of child sex abuse, hopefully even before Education questions on Monday?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. The question of whether a Minister comes to the House to make a statement voluntarily is a matter for the Minister. I was conscious of this matter, which was courteously drawn to my attention by the hon. Gentleman. My understanding is that the Government have just received the report and have not yet penned a response. I had a sense that the House would benefit from an exchange on the matter at the point at which the Government had determined a response, but these matters, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are kept under review. It would be perfectly open to a Minister to come to the House before Education questions or, if not, to do so pretty soon. I dare say the hon. Gentleman has his back channels by which he keeps in touch with the Government’s thinking on this, and I feel sure that it will not be long before a very thorough exploration of the issues takes place on the Floor of the House.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you have it in your power to extend Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions? I know that a number of Members here would like to have raised an attack in Jhelum in Pakistan against the Ahmadi Muslim community, and to have heard from Ministers that they would call in the high commissioner for Pakistan to challenge him and to say to him that attacking people on the basis of faith is not acceptable.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He speaks with all the moral force of a former Deputy Leader of the House, no less. I note his inquiry in relation to my powers. The short answer is that I do not have the power to extend Foreign Office questions or any other Question Time session—[Interruption]—although I sometimes find myself doing so anyway, as those on the Treasury Bench were quick to point out, more or less good-naturedly. The truth of the matter is that we often overrun a bit because I want to hear Back Benchers. The right hon. Gentleman has very cheekily and inappropriately, but I think on this occasion forgivably, made his point in his own way, even though he did not really have a right to do so.
Protection of Family Homes (Enforcement and Permitted Development)
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about guidance to local authorities on when to take enforcement action for breaches of planning law; to clarify guidance on the scope of permitted development rights; to make provision about rights and entitlements, including of appeal, for people whose homes are affected by such breaches; to make provision for the inspection and regulation of building under the permitted development regime; to establish financial penalties for developers who breach planning law in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
The Selly Oak Village and Bournbrook parts of my constituency were once particularly attractive places, full of small terraced and other family homes on a series of quiet, interlocking, tree-lined streets. Nowadays, a walk down Hubert, Teignmouth or Dawlish Roads reveals a very different scene. One is visually assaulted by a series of “To Let” boards of all shapes and sizes, installed at all angles. The streets, pavements and small front gardens are littered with skips, builders’ rubble, sand and cement, and there is constant noise at all hours, including at weekends, of additional bedrooms being hammered and bolted on to dwellings. Where once we could expect to see rows of small family homes, we now witness architectural carbuncles jutting at odd angles, extending into adjacent houses and covering rear gardens. Additional bedrooms are variously described as sheds, games rooms and saunas.
My local authority seems powerless to arrest this destruction. It says that enforcement action is costly and the guidance from central Government is unclear. Enforcement action is discretionary and local authorities are required to act proportionately. Birmingham City Council has advised me that it has no policy of limiting the number of planning enforcement cases that it pursues, but I note that there has been a steady reduction in recent years. To be fair, it has initiated a limited article 4 direction covering a small part of my constituency, which means that planning permission is needed before a family house can be converted into a house in multiple occupation for up to six people—a change, as I understand it, from class 3 to class 4 use. However, the problems continue. The issue is not confined to one area of my constituency or to one part of Birmingham, but affects many towns and cities across the country, as is evidenced by the broad support for the Bill.
Examples of the problems include those of Mr and Mrs White, a retired couple, who I believe are in the Gallery. The developer who bought the house next door commenced an extension that in effect changed their detached home into a semi-detached property, as the roof extension expanded to sit on top of their roof and guttering. The council failed to take enforcement action, despite the fact that the work commenced without planning approval and was beyond the scope of permitted development. A surveyor’s report has indicated the damage done to the external wall of their home. This has cost them thousands of pounds in court fees, but as yet, the problem continues.
In Tiverton Road, Mrs O’Sullivan complained that work on an extension, which included digging up the foundations in a shared alleyway, had commenced without planning permission. The council agreed to investigate, but advised in advance that
“in deciding whether it would be expedient to take enforcement action, the council has to take into account whether any breach of planning control unacceptably affects public amenity or the use of land and buildings which should be protected in the public interest.”
In this case, the extension was not covered by permitted development regulations and needed planning approval. None the less, the council judged that the risk to Mrs O’Sullivan’s property constituted limited harm, and that her loss of light did not justify action.
In Bournbrook Road, a constituent complained about a landlord’s development that exceeded the dimensions on the plan available on the council website, but was told that officers had concluded that it was not expedient to take any action. In Gristhorpe Road, Miss Tempest complained that the Britannia Group continued to build extensions designed to convert homes into eight-bedroom properties, despite planning permission being refused. Elsewhere in Gristhorpe Road, cowboy builders demolished, without permission, the chimneys and gas flues that supported the gas fire of an elderly couple, putting them at serious risk. At another property, when a constituent complained, the council admitted that a three-level development overlooking his garden and those of his neighbours completely disregarded the article 4 direction and was without permission.
I could go on. I have case after case of rogue developers and cowboy builders doing as they please. All these cases are about ordinary people who have worked and saved for their family home, only to find that landlords and developers are working hand in glove with cowboy builders to buy up nearby properties and turning their road or street into a series of mini-hostels. It is no surprise that the value of the properties then plummets to the point at which the only person buying is yet another developer, and so the cycle begins again.
As I have investigated the issue, I have become aware of an unintended consequence of the permitted development arrangements. I want to be clear that I have nothing against permitted development—I welcome the Government’s good intentions in trying to make it easier for people to make small alterations or additions to their home—but I am not sure that the Government ever intended this permission to be exploited by ruthless landlords and developers, who are destroying family homes and bringing misery to thousands of ordinary family and retired couples, such as the Whites. The local authority advises me that the changes in the law mean that many agents and owners are unclear about what they can and cannot build. Strangely, those who advise the rogue landlords always err on the side of ever-greater expansion.
My ten-minute rule Bill seeks to achieve four things. First, it calls on the Department for Communities and Local Government to produce clearer guidance for planning authorities on when enforcement action should be taken, and asks all local authorities to publish an enforcement plan so that there are fewer grey areas. Secondly, it calls for a simple right of appeal for the victims of rogue building when the local authority concludes that it is not expedient to act.
Thirdly, the Bill asks that extensions be checked independently against building regulations to make sure that they are safe. At present, there is nothing to stop a rogue developer employing his or her own inspector to sign off the dodgy work done by his or her team of cowboy builders. If we do not act on this, a tragedy will surely follow.
Finally, the Bill calls on the Government to consider the introduction of fixed-penalty fines to serve as a deterrent against the actions of rogue developers. The penalties would be modelled on those that the Government propose in clause 86 of the Housing and Planning Bill to deal with rogue landlords.
This ten-minute rule Bill calls for a modest number of changes that are designed to protect family homes, address the enforcement problems and ease the position on permitted development so that it once again fulfils the aspirations of Ministers, without giving a licence to ride roughshod over local people and destroy family homes and local communities. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Steve McCabe, Paul Blomfield, Mr Nigel Evans, Michael Fabricant, Diana Johnson, Norman Lamb, Shabana Mahmood, Greg Mulholland, Jess Phillips and Dr Alan Whitehead present the Bill.
Steve McCabe accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January, and to be printed (Bill 100).
Opposition Day
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Trident
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 64 / Noes: 330 - Question accordingly negatived.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that Trident should not be renewed.
It is a pleasure to move the motion that stands in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and the Green party.
The SNP was elected to this place in such numbers in May on a promise to do three things: first, to argue that the maximum possible powers be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, via the full delivery of the vow; secondly, to fight tooth and nail against the failed and divisive policies of austerity, and to protect the poorest and most vulnerable in our society from the worst excesses of this Government; and thirdly, to oppose Trident. By bringing this matter to the Floor of the House today, the SNP can say that within the first six months of being here, we have done exactly what we promised to do. Of course, there is much more that we need to do on all those issues, but no one will ever be able to accuse us of not doing what we said we would do.
In recent months, Trident and the UK’s nuclear—
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Brendan O'Hara
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make some progress.
No one could deny that Trident and the nuclear deterrent have been at the forefront of public debate for many years, not only because this is the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but because the United Kingdom will soon decide whether to commit to spending £167,000,000,000 over the lifetime of the Trident programme.
We had high hopes that we would not be a lone voice. When the rank and file of the British Labour party elected the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), an avowed unilateralist, as its leader, SNP Members hoped that there would be serious opposition to Trident. Of course, the mere thought of that caused palpitations among both the red and blue shades of the British establishment. I genuinely wish the right hon. Gentleman well in continuing his robust opposition to Trident.
Mrs Murray
While the hon. Gentleman is outlining the reasons behind the motion, will he explain the SNP’s apparent incoherence during the Scottish referendum campaign, when it pledged to scrap Trident on the one hand and to seek to join NATO, a nuclear alliance, on the other?
Brendan O'Hara
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not accept for a moment her definition of incoherence. If that was incoherent, the actions of Germany, Spain and many other members of NATO are equally incoherent. I would point—
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Brendan O'Hara
Please, let me finish the answer. I point out to the hon. Lady that the last two Secretaries-General of NATO have been Danish and Norwegian—countries that have exactly the same position that we advocate.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Brendan O'Hara
No, I will make some progress. I realise that you are very keen to get in on this debate—so keen that you left a little message on my door this morning.
Mr Speaker
I am not keen to get into this debate and I did not leave a message on anybody’s door.
Brendan O'Hara
My apologies, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) left a little note on my door this morning. I will come to him.
Mr Speaker
That is a matter of debate. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) has the floor. When it is clear that he is not taking an intervention, he must not be hollered at from a sedentary position by Members on either side of the House. He is free to develop his case.
Brendan O'Hara
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I wish the right hon. Member for Islington North well. I say to Members of his party that being anti-Trident can be a vote winner. The fact that the SNP was returned in such great numbers on an explicitly anti-Trident platform is testimony to that.
In recent weeks, the Scottish Parliament, yet again, reaffirmed its outright and overwhelming opposition to Trident. The Scottish Government, the Scottish TUC, the Scottish Churches and great swathes of Scottish civic society have set their face against Trident.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind us how the different political parties in the Scottish Parliament voted on Trident? What decision was reached at the annual conference of the Scottish Labour party? Does he not think it strange that the single Member of Parliament from the Scottish Labour party, who opposes Trident and whose party opposes Trident, is not even in the Chamber for this debate?
Brendan O'Hara
As my right hon. Friend points out, there is an established consensus among the Scottish political parties against Trident. The Scottish National party, the Scottish Greens, the Scottish Socialists and, as he says, the Scottish Labour party are all opposed to Trident. We have a Government in Westminster with just one elected Member of Parliament from Scotland, representing a party that failed to achieve even 15% of the vote in Scotland, yet they insist that they have the right to foist on Scotland weapons of mass destruction that Scotland has said it does not want.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Does my hon. Friend find it strange to see the contrast between the unified voice from Scotland and the confusion from the Welsh Labour party, which is for Trident and then against Trident, and that is quite apart from the First Minister, who wants to move it down to west Wales?
Brendan O’Hara
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have been asked a number of times by the media and the press, “Are you doing this simply to embarrass the Labour party?”, but the Labour party needs no assistance from me in embarrassing itself on this matter.
Brendan O'Hara
I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention in a moment.
I have always argued that there is no moral, economic or military case for Trident, and—let us be absolutely clear—there is no moral case for any state to possess weapons of mass destruction. Possessing the wherewithal to destroy the world and everything in it several times over is not something to be proud of; indeed, it is something to be deeply ashamed of. I know of no creed, belief system or article of faith that has ever said it is okay to hold the threat of annihilation over one’s neighbour, and to disguise it as peacekeeping.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the possession of nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent that has worked well for many years? In 1994 Ukraine unilaterally disarmed, relying on a treaty with Russia that meant it would not invade. That undertaking was broken and Ukraine is now suffering because of the absence of those weapons.
Brendan O'Hara
I will pick up the hon. Gentleman’s point later in my speech. The idea of a deterrent is important and I will address that issue.
Not only is Trident morally questionable, but I believe it is economic madness. In 2006 when the Successor programme was first discussed, the likely cost of building new submarines was put at between £15 billion and £20 billion. Yesterday’s strategic defence and security review put that cost at £31 billion, with £10 billion of contingency on top of that. That is £41 billion set aside to build submarines—the cost has doubled in the last decade, and I shudder to think what it will be in the next decade. Based on the Government’s own figures, the lifetime cost of Trident will be in the region of £167,000,000,000. That is real, taxpayers’ money, and there is no escaping that fact. It may—indeed, it should—embarrass the Labour party that that money has been made on the backs of the poor and the most vulnerable in our society.
The Chancellor appeared at Faslane, appearing out of nowhere like Mr Benn—I mean the cartoon character, not the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—to announce £500 million of extensions to jetties. On the same day, the United Nations announced that it would be investigating whether the Government’s policy of cutting welfare support to the disabled was a violation of their human rights.
Brendan O'Hara
I know that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) is anxious to get involved in the debate, but as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute I represent Faslane and Coulport, and I live roughly six miles from the base. For decades, my constituents have been told that their jobs and prosperity depend totally on that base.
Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend’s constituency is next to mine. Does he have the same grave concerns that I have about the alarming number of nuclear safety incidents that have been reported at Faslane naval base? There was a 54% increase in the number of incidents reported in 2013-14 compared with 2012-13. Such incidents threaten the safety not only of the workers at Faslane nuclear base—a large proportion of whom live in my constituency —but the communities that surround it.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House that interventions should be extremely brief. It is not proper for a Member to read out what amounts to a mini-speech that purports to be an intervention.
Brendan O’Hara
I agree with my hon. Friend that safety is paramount, and I raised that issue last week in a debate in Westminster Hall. There are huge safety concerns among workers at Faslane about the cuts being made within the nuclear operations department.
I hope my hon. Friends realise that my election in Argyll and Bute suggests that we do not have to put all our eggs in one basket. Let me make it clear that by saying no to Trident, we are not saying no to Faslane—far from it. [Interruption.] The SNP has never, and will never, consider closing the Faslane base. Whether as part of the United Kingdom or—hopefully sooner rather than later—as part of an independent Scotland, Faslane will have a bright, non-nuclear future as a conventional naval base. Faslane is a fantastic facility, and its proximity to the north Atlantic means that its prospects are not dependent on having nuclear submarines based there. [Interruption.]
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Given the outrageous chortling from both sides of the House, does my hon. Friend agree that the only way that the UK establishment parties will support Faslane is if it has nuclear weapons? What a shocking proposal that is.
Brendan O'Hara
I agree with my hon. Friend. Today we have seen through any pretence that the Labour party is somehow taking a radical position on nuclear weapons—it is bewildering.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I assure the hon. Gentleman that some Labour Members support his view. I am one of those, and I intend to vote for the motion this evening.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. As I understood it, he said that without nuclear submarines at Faslane, and with the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, he would seek to have a naval base with ships at Faslane. He also said that he considered it a waste of money to build new hardware for the Navy because that money could be better spent on welfare. Those points do not seem to marry up.
Brendan O'Hara
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but at no point have we said that we will double-spend that money. Scotland’s share of the money that we would save by not renewing Trident would be in the region of £15 billion over the lifetime of Trident, and that money could be invested in conventional defence and in turning Faslane from a nuclear submarine port to a state-of-the-art conventional naval base.
Several hon. Members rose—
Brendan O'Hara
I will make progress. I have taken a lot of interventions and been very generous.
I have always argued that there is no military case for Trident because it is not a military weapon. Trident is a political weapon that can never, and will never, be used. Nevertheless, it is set to consume between 30% and 50% of the UK defence procurement budget.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that Trident is being used every day? Every moment that we have continuous at-sea deterrence, Trident is being used. The fact that it is never fired in anger is a symbol of its success.
Brendan O'Hara
It will come as no surprise to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with him at all, and I will come on to the point about deterrence.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Brendan O'Hara
I will make progress. I have been very generous up to now.
The money spent on Trident is put into keeping Britain at the top table of the United Nations Security Council. Money that should be doing good—whether through peacekeeping, reacting to emergencies such as the Ebola outbreak, or relieving the humanitarian crises that are currently unfolding in the middle east and north Africa—is being sacrificed on a collective military and political ego trip that has more to do with status than with defence.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Brendan O'Hara
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make some progress.
Indeed, Members should not just take my word for it. In a Defence Committee evidence session last week, General Sir Richard Shirreff, referring to finding money for Trident, said:
“you either go down the line of nuclear capability at the expense of conventional capability or conventional capability at the expense of nuclear. It seems to be that sort of zero-sum game”.
The problem with Trident is that it puts pressure on the rest of the defence budget to the detriment of our overall security. Even Tony Blair, not someone I seek to quote often in this place, wrote in his memoir about Trident renewal that
“The expense is huge and the utility…non-existent in terms of military use.”
He decided to go down the road of Trident renewal, however, because it would be
“too big a downgrading of our status as a nation.”
Caroline Lucas
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that nuclear weapons are actually making us less, not more, safe? They give out a signal to the rest of the world that the only way to guarantee security is by acquiring nuclear weapons, therefore driving proliferation rather than countering it.
Brendan O'Hara
I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree.
Tony Blair summed it up: the UK’s obsession with having an independent nuclear deterrent is little more than a former imperial power indulging in a desperate search for a better yesterday. Possessing Trident is not about defence; it is about the illusion of continuing past glories regardless of cost. The fact is that we cannot afford it. Pride, it seems, will not let us back down. We would rather cut benefits from the disabled. We would rather take tax credits away from the working poor, as long as the bottomless pit of Trident is fed.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
On affordability, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Reed
I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have written to the former First Minister about these issues on a number of occasions and have not yet received any answers. In the event of decommissioning the nuclear fleet and the warheads at Faslane, where in Scotland would the nuclear materials be stored and disposed of, and how much would it cost the Scottish taxpayer?
Brendan O'Hara
Scotland is absolutely set to take its responsibility. Scotland accepts that we have responsibility and Scotland will take care of it, but to use that as an argument to re-arm is, frankly, ridiculous.
Brendan O'Hara
I will make some progress.
The possession of top-end military capabilities without the ability to exercise them effectively is known in strategic parlance as a hollow force. To put that in a more colloquial way, we are acting as though we have a fur coat and nae knickers. Trident is a military and political ego trip paid for on the backs of the poor.
The UK independent nuclear deterrent is not all that independent. I refer hon. Members to the Defence Committee report of 30 June 2006, which states that the fact that
“in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the façade of being a global military power. In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval.”
In reality, it will be a US commander-in-chief who will ultimately decide. In 18 months’ time, that commander-in-chief could be President Donald Trump. Does anyone seriously think that Trident makes the world a safer place?
Brendan O'Hara
I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman. Let me press on.
Everyone accepts that the world has never been a more uncertain place. The world is changing and the threats are changing. They are most certainly not as they were 30 or 40 years ago. Many military strategists recognise that the changes have to be prepared for accordingly. They have identified important threats. There is mass migration into mega cities; by 2040, it is thought that 70% of the world will be urbanised. The great movement of people because of climate change and the search for natural resources, such as water and energy, will cause huge global problems too.
We are increasingly engaged in an ideological war with terrorism. Hybrid warfare and cyber-attacks will be among our enemies’ main weapons. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself said that Daesh was an existential threat to the United Kingdom. We have to assume, sadly, that after the evil of Daesh is destroyed other ideologically driven groups will emerge. Looking ahead, in many ways the traditional nation state will not be the main enemy. Why then, given the radical changes happening in the world, is the UK’s response exactly as it was 30 or 40 years ago—nuclear-armed submarines at sea 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, with nuclear missiles pointed at and designed to obliterate European cities?
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Gentleman makes the case for Britain’s unilateral nuclear disarmament, a case we have heard many times in this Chamber over the years. How does he address the inescapable fact that the only nation that has ever had nuclear weapons used against it, namely Japan, did not have any?
Brendan O'Hara
I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. To be perfectly honest, it was not exactly worth waiting for. It makes no military sense at all. I return to the view that Trident is not a military weapon; it is purely a political weapon.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is clearly satisfied that the Russian state is no longer a threat to western security and the security of the UK. Perhaps he could give us his reasons for thinking that. Why is he so confident that Russia is no longer a threat to the security of the UK?
Brendan O'Hara
The hon. Lady is advocating that every country in the world—Germany, Poland, Norway and Sweden—should arm itself to the teeth. Is she honestly arguing for that? Does she believe that Russia is going to come sweeping across the plains and invade the United Kingdom? Is that what she is honestly advocating? If she wants to argue that every country in the world should possess its own nuclear weapons, I advise her to take that to the Labour party. From the sound of it, she may well get some support.
As I mentioned at the start of my speech, there was a genuine, though forlorn, hope that, with the election of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) as leader of the Labour party, there would at least be a debate on Trident in this place. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has not managed to take his party with him. The paltry attendance of Labour Members today suggests exactly that.
The Labour party’s refusal to debate Trident will disappoint many in their own rank and file. I have no doubt that when the Prime Minister promises a vote on the maingate decision, as he did yesterday, I will see the right hon. Member for Islington North voting with the Scottish National party against Trident renewal. I fear he will have to swim through a tide of his own MPs going through the Lobby with the Conservative party again to support Trident renewal at a cost of £167,000 million. Labour loves to talk about being a multilateral party, but it cannot hide behind the fig leaf of multilateralism while committing the United Kingdom to this massive increase in nuclear weaponry. If the Labour party decides to support the Government in renewing the Trident missile programme, it will be as morally bankrupt as the Conservative party.
If Trident was ever an answer, it was an answer to a 20th-century problem, not to the problems we face in the 21st century. Trident is a purely political not a military weapon. It does not make us any more safe than nations that do not possess weapons of mass destruction. Trident is all about the UK projecting power. It is a desperate attempt to cling to the remnants of a fading imperial past, and is being paid for on the backs of the poor. Trident is diminishing the rest of the UK’s capability, and therefore there is no moral, economic or military case for renewing it.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
The Government welcome the opportunity to discuss our nuclear deterrent, so I thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) for tabling the motion.
In his statement yesterday, the Prime Minister set out the growing scale, diversity and complexity of the threats we face, and to tackle them we must have an array of weapons, up to and including the nuclear deterrent. It is worrying that, in a more dangerous world, the cross-party consensus we used to enjoy on our deterrent appears to be weakening. I remind Opposition Members that it was Labour Ministers—Attlee and Bevin—who in the 1940s argued for a nuclear deterrent with “a Union Jack” on the top of it, yet today the leader of the Labour party opposes his party’s official policy. He wants to scrap Trident and has said he is not prepared to use it.
Equally worrying is the non-attendance of the shadow Secretary of State, who has been admirably clear in opposing her leader while agreeing to lead a review of the policy. I can well understand her anger at the decision to appoint as co-chair of that review Mr Ken Livingstone, who wants not to review Trident but to abolish it. Indeed, he declared London to be a nuclear-free zone. This is like appointing an arsonist as the co-chief fire officer.
Our international allies look on with dismay at this shambles opposite, which can only be of comfort to adversaries. I appeal again to the tradition in the Labour party that proudly supports our independent nuclear deterrent to renew the consensus, to put aside party politics in the national interest, as the shadow Chancellor said on television on Sunday, and to join us in remaking the case for the deterrent.
John Woodcock
I pledge that Labour MPs will help the Secretary of State get through the programme we started in government, but will he pledge to base the maingate decision on the operational contracting need of the programme, not on political considerations?
Michael Fallon
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I look forward to debating and to the House deciding on the principle of renewing the four submarines—not the Trident missile—next year.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
When will we have a debate on Trident where we actually take a decision?
Michael Fallon
The decision had to await the publication of the SDSR yesterday, but I hope we can now take it in 2016. We will then have to get on and start building the Successor submarines, as I shall explain.
Successive Labour and Conservative Governments have judged that a minimum credible nuclear deterrent is critical to our national security—that a nuclear deterrent is the only assured way of deterring nuclear threats and blackmail by nuclear states. For more than 60 years, it has done that job. Whatever side of the argument we are on, let us pay tribute to the crews of HMS Vanguard, Vengeance, Victorious and Vigilant, their families and all those who ensure, and have ensured, that one of those boats is on patrol 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
As the wife of a submariner serving on HMS Victorious, I thank the Secretary of State for his tribute. The crews are doing their job and serving in the way they have been sent to do, defending our democracy, but he has to realise that none the less they do not all agree with his views on Trident.
Michael Fallon
I accept what the hon. Lady says, and of course if she is married to one of them, she will know better than anybody in the House, but I have met some of the crews and I have yet to meet a submariner who does not have faith in the job he is doing—but there we are.
The decision that Parliament has to take next year, which hon. Members just asked about, is not whether to replace the Trident missile or renew the warheads, but whether to replace the Vanguard submarines that need to be replaced by the early 2030s.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
What might the future of Faslane be without nuclear submarines and how many jobs, at the largest industrial employment site in Scotland, would be lost if nuclear submarines were banned?
Michael Fallon
There would obviously be significant implications for Faslane if the nuclear deterrent was no longer there, as was pointed out yesterday by GMB Scotland, which said:
“The commitment in the SDSR to multilateralism and to the successor programme going ahead is welcome as it is crucial to jobs”
in Scotland.
The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to replace the Vanguard submarines, and it takes over a decade to build and trial a nuclear submarine, so we have to take that decision in 2016. Design work is already far advanced, and in yesterday’s review we announced further investment of £600 million, which takes the assessment phase cost from £3.3 billion to £3.9 billion.
I want to make three basic points about why renewal is vital. First, this is about realism. We are of course committed to creating the conditions where nuclear weapons will no longer be necessary. We have reduced our nuclear forces by well over half since the height of the cold war; this very year, I cut the number of deployed warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40, and by the mid-2020s, we will have reduced our overall stockpile of nuclear weapons to no more than 180 warheads. Unfortunately, those actions have not been matched by any other nuclear nation or stopped unstable nations seeking to acquire or develop nuclear weapons.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned costs. If we had had an effective Opposition yesterday, and even today, there might have been a greater focus on the cost overruns, which are what worry me. He is making sterling efforts to deal with the problem in the MOD, for which I salute him, but will he commit to holding the feet of the private sector to the fire and making sure there are no more cost overruns? This is too big a project to take money from the conventional forces.
Michael Fallon
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I will come later to how we will deliver the Successor programme and maintain that downward pressure on costs that he wishes to see.
I said that other nations have not matched our own disarmament. Russia is commissioning a new Dolgoruky class of eight nuclear submarines, is developing and preparing to deploy a variety of land-based ICBM classes, and is planning to reintroduce rail-based ICBMs. Last month, North Korea showed off a long-range ballistic missile carrying miniaturised nuclear warheads. It has carried out three nuclear tests and, in defiance of the international community, conducted ballistic missile tests. In an unpredictable nuclear age, we cannot simply wish away threats that exist now or that may emerge in the 2030s, 2040s and right through to the 2050s.
Kelvin Hopkins
On 14 July this year, China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the UK and the USA, supported by the EU High Representative for foreign affairs, reached an agreement with Iran. The agreement included these words:
“under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.”
Progress is being made by negotiation.
Michael Fallon
Indeed, and Members on both sides of the House should absolutely welcome that agreement with Iran, but we have not had similar progress from any of the other states that use nuclear weapons—and there are still a large number of states that are trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Fallon
I will give way again later, but I must make some progress.
My second point is about the practical effect of the deterrent. Our nuclear deterrent works. It deters aggression every single day. There have been many conflicts in the last six decades, and not one of them has involved a direct conflict between nuclear states. Not one country under the protection of an extended nuclear umbrella has been invaded. Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) is quite wrong about that—and its command and control system as well as its decision-making apparatus are ours, and ours alone. It offers, of course, a second centre of decision making within NATO that will complicate an adversary’s plans. It is worth reminding ourselves that NATO is a nuclear alliance. One of the absurdities, if I may say so, of the Scottish National party’s position is that while opposing Trident it would—if voters had not rejected its separatism last year—have sought NATO membership and would then have benefited from its nuclear umbrella.
The third reason we must renew our nuclear submarines is that there is no alternative at the moment. How do we know that? We commissioned the Trident alternatives review in 2013. Having looked at all the alternatives—non-submarine alternatives, other submarine alternatives, non-continuous deterrent—it demonstrated that no alternative system is as capable or cost-effective as the Trident-based deterrent. If we accept that there is a threat—perhaps the SNP does not—that needs to be deterred, and if we accept that our enemies work nights and weekends, we must also accept that there can be no half-measures. A four-boat continuous at-sea posture is the minimum way to offer the security we need.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State therefore explain to me and my colleagues how Trident addresses the real current threat that we are experiencing—the threat from radical jihadism? Would those enemies not be jumping for joy if the UK ever even thought about threatening IS with nuclear weapons?
Michael Fallon
As the SDSR document pointed out yesterday, there are a series of threats to our country at the moment, and we have to deal with all of them. One of them has been the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the commitment of countries such as Russia to continue to spend more on developing their nuclear weapons, as I have pointed out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Fallon
I must make a little more progress.
We have to address the consequences of passing this motion tonight. It is scarcely believable that other nations, hearing the news from 4 o’clock today in the House of Commons, will suddenly decide to disarm or stop seeking nuclear weapons. There are 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world today. We wish there were not, but there are. Anybody voting in the Division tonight has to answer who, after we had got rid of our nuclear weapons, would continue to provide the deterrent.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I wonder what message it would send to rogue and unstable nations if Britain were to scrap its nuclear deterrent.
Michael Fallon
It would send a terrible message—that we are not serious about deterring other countries, particularly those rogue countries that seek every day to develop exactly the kind of nuclear weapons that we already have.
We have touched in the debate on the future of HM Naval Base Clyde, which is one of the largest employment sites in Scotland. It is set to increase to 8,200 jobs by 2020 when all the Royal Navy’s submarines will be based at Faslane. That is a reminder that the Successor programme is a national endeavour, involving thousands of people and hundreds of firms right across our country, including in Scotland. Our state-of-the art submarines require skills that keep our Royal Navy and our country at the cutting edge, and they will inspire the next generation of engineers, software developers and designers. If the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute had his way, thousands of jobs would disappear and those manufacturing skills would be lost.
It has not been made clear to us how the SNP plans to deal with the industrial damage that will result from its decision. In the Scottish Parliament, it hid behind a vague motion that
“firm commitments must be made to the trade unions on the retention of defence workers’ jobs”.
Workers on the Clyde do not want parliamentary motions; they want to be sure of a pay cheque every month. They want to know that they have got a job. Indeed, the acting Scottish secretary of the GMB, Gary Smith, said that diversification
“is based on Alice-in-Wonderland politics promising pie-in-the-sky alternative jobs for workers who are vital to our national security”.
That is the authentic voice of a Scottish trade union.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
The MOD permanent secretary Jon Thompson told the Public Accounts Committee in October that the Trident project is one that keeps him awake at night. Given the excessive escalation in Trident costs announced yesterday, can the Secretary of State not see how Trident undermines conventional forces? He may not lose sleep over this, but is not the UK sleepwalking into a reduction in conventional forces because of his decisions?
Michael Fallon
The document we published yesterday, the strategic defence and security review, really gives the lie to the hon. Gentleman’s proposition, because we are spending more on conventional defence, as well as renewing our Successor programme. The hon. Gentleman is right that the management of that programme has to be done properly and cost-effectively, so let me turn to the whole issue of cost.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Fallon
I will make a little progress, and then give way again, as I know a number of hon. Members want to get into the debate.
There have been some wild reports, accentuated today, suggesting that the Trident replacement will cost £167 billion. That assumes a year-on-year growth in GDP of 2.5%.
That same logic would see us spending around £800 billion on overseas aid over the same period, with a Defence budget of about £100 billion in 2060. Let us look at the facts. We estimate that four new submarines would cost £31 billion—a cost spread over 35 years, which amounts to an insurance policy of less than 0.2% per year of total Government spending for a capability that will remain in service until 2060.
Let me put that £31 billion in context for the House and for those among my hon. Friends who are so keen on advanced high-speed railway lines. The Successor programme will cost £31 billion, with a contingency fund above that taking the total budget to some £40 billion. High Speed Two will cost £50 billion.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Secretary of State said that he would put the £31 billion in context. Does it not constitute a £6 billion increase in the last year? We should add to that the £10 billion contingency fund, and also take into account the promise in the review to spend £178 billion on equipment, which we are told is an extra £12 billion. It is clear that that extra money will actually be spent on Trident, and that the Secretary of State is cutting provision for tier 1 threats to pay for a nuclear deterrent to deal with what is classed as a tier 2 threat. There is no doubt that nuclear weapons are being paid for at the expense of conventional protection.
Michael Fallon
No cuts in weapons are included in the document that we published yesterday. On the contrary, there are more ships, more planes, more equipment for the special forces—more frigates being built on the Clyde. Let me very clear. The figure has increased—and we gave the House the correct update yesterday—since it was specified in a 2006 White Paper and adjusted again in 2011. The figure that we gave yesterday has been updated from the original estimate four years ago. The cost is £31 billion for the four submarines, with a contingency fund of £10 billion on top of that.
Let me now respond to the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), from the depth of his experience as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Yes, we must be eagle-eyed where costs are concerned. The new conventional submarines that are being built at Barrow, the Astute class submarines, are late, but the new Successor submarines cannot be late. We therefore believe, the Chancellor and I, that it is essential to reform the way in which the submarines are delivered, to ensure that continuous at-sea deterrence can be maintained, and to ensure that the taxpayer is given proper value for money. We are establishing a new delivery body for the Successor programme, and a new team at the Ministry of Defence, headed by an experienced commercial specialist, to act as the single sponsor for all aspects of the defence nuclear enterprise, from procurement to disposal.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, if we want to keep Britain safe, it is not a question of choosing between renewing our nuclear deterrent and taking the necessary action against ISIL—given that both are vital—and that it would be foolhardy, not to say arrogant, to believe that anyone in the House can predict the risks and threats that Britain will face in the next 30 or 40 years?
Michael Fallon
I could not have put it better. In our latest assessment, which is contained in the document that was published yesterday, we tried to estimate the threats to our country. We should be honest and humble about the fact that the 2010 review did not predict the resurgence of Russia and the action that it took in Crimea and Ukraine; nor did it predict the rise of ISIL. We try to predict, but we cannot be sure further ahead.
Last year, the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Fallon
I have already been generous in giving way.
Let me remind the House that the deterrent is for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the people of Scotland will benefit from the security it provides.
Earlier this year, in the last vote on Trident, Parliament voted to support it by a majority of 327. Yesterday the Prime Minister confirmed our intention to hold a debate and vote on the principle of continuous at-sea deterrence and our plans for Successor. This afternoon we face the SNP motion, and our allies and our adversaries will be paying attention.
This is not a time to gamble with our security; on the contrary, it is a time to safeguard this generation and generations to come. Let me put it as simply as the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) just put it to me. If Members on either side of the House can be absolutely sure that no nuclear threat to this country will emerge throughout the 2030s, the 2040s and the 2050s, they should vote for the motion. I cannot be sure of that, and Conservative Members are not prepared to gamble with our nation’s security.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate, which comes at a time when the Labour Party is conducting a review of our defence policies in general and our approach to Trident in particular.
The decision that Parliament will make in the coming months about the future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent is a matter of huge importance for the country. It will affect our defence and security strategy for decades to come, as well as our global standing. As we have already heard today, it will affect thousands of livelihoods in the United Kingdom that depend on renewal of the deterrent. It will affect the role that the United Kingdom can play in global progress on disarmament, and it will go to the very heart of the UK’s relationship with our NATO allies, for whom we currently provide an important arm of the Nuclear Planning Group.
Operation Relentless, the Royal Navy’s codename for the continuous at-sea deterrent currently undertaken by the Vanguard class of submarines, has been patrolling since April 1969. The British people rightly do not expect parliamentarians to take a decision to end or continue such patrols lightly. They recognise that this is a question of complexity and a fine political balance, as well as a question of military effectiveness.
There are, of course, strongly and deeply held views on each side of this crucial debate, and we have the utmost respect for all of them, but let me be absolutely clear: this issue is too important for the future of our country for Members to play party-political games with it. We all know that the SNP scheduled this half-day debate not to influence Government policy—in fact, its contribution did not feature a single question to the Government—but to attempt to score cheap political points.
Several hon. Members rose—
Toby Perkins
I will give way in a moment.
Anyone who may have genuinely believed that what we were going to hear today was a serious case presented by the SNP had merely to witness the speech made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who could barely contain his delight at the fact that the Labour party was reviewing its position. There has been no serious contribution to the debate about Trident, and no serious challenge to the Government. SNP Members are simply engaging in cheap political point-scoring, exactly as they did during an Opposition day debate back in January.
Several hon. Members rose—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We do not have ooh-ing and ah-ing in the Chamber—although we have not had any ah-ing; just ooh-ing. That is enough. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) does not wish to give way at the moment, but I am sure that he will in due course.
Toby Perkins
Indeed I will. [Laughter.] Once again, SNP Members are laughing. They think that this is a highly hilarious debate, but the fact is that it is not highly hilarious for the people whose lives depend on it, and it is not highly hilarious for the people who rely on the NATO umbrella and the nuclear deterrent for their security.
We feel that it is not appropriate to vote on this motion at a time when we are still conducting our review. We think that the motion is a cheap piece of political point-scoring—
Toby Perkins
And on the subject of cheap political point-scoring, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Pete Wishart
We know that the Labour party is currently in a total and utter shambles and mess over Trident, but if the outcome of the review that is being undertaken by the former Mayor of London is a recommendation that the Labour party support its leader on the issue of unilateral disarmament, will the rest of the party back him?
Toby Perkins
I shall talk in more detail shortly about the way in which the review is being put together. However, in the case of an issue of this kind, on which there are plainly differences of opinion, it is nonsense to suggest that the involvement of different people with different opinions is a shambles. The position is absolutely clear: the Labour party is discussing this decision, and we will listen to a variety of views before reaching a conclusion.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I think that many Conservative Members will be very sympathetic to the serious way in which the hon. Gentleman is tackling this matter, but will he undertake to return to the House when the review has been completed, in order to clarify the Labour party’s position for the benefit of the nation? It is obvious that there can be no fudging on the issue of nuclear deterrence: you are either in or out.
Toby Perkins
I will be able to offer a bit more clarity to the hon. Gentleman very shortly.
The SNP motion has, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute was honest enough to admit, not been without problems. The original motion, which each SNP Member signed without noticing the mistake, said Trident should not be “removed”. Subsequently, they discovered they had made that mistake.
As the Secretary of State made clear, the motion talks about Trident, but actually the decision we are facing at the moment is about renewal of the Vanguard class of submarines, not renewing Trident at all. Important details like that may be lost on SNP Members, as, indeed, apparently was the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum, in which the majority of Scots voted in favour of staying part of the United Kingdom and they will be aware that that involved having Trident.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am somewhat perplexed by the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that we should not be discussing Trident. This debate is about Trident and it is vital that we understand the position of Labour Members on this very important issue.
Toby Perkins
Once again, that makes it clear that this motion is all about the Labour party’s position. I have attempted to clarify the difference between the decision this House will be facing shortly and the wording of the motion before us.
Liz Kendall
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that even though the SNP called this debate, it has failed to set out its position either on how it would replace jobs or how it would dispose of the weapons? Should not the debate have been about its policy, as it called this debate today?
Toby Perkins
For the second time today, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. There is, of course, a whole series of inconsistencies in the SNP position. Today we were hearing that a decision to go forward with Trident would be choosing to buy nuclear capability on the backs of the poor, yet only half an hour before that we had heard SNP Members saying all the money being spent on Trident would instead be spent on conventional weapons. Either the money they are saving from Trident is going to be spent on hospitals, schools and transport, or it is going to be spent on conventional forces.
No one can blame the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for being so confused, however, because if we look back through the history of the SNP, we see that this confusion is very long standing. In 2012, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) was saying all the savings would be spent on conventional defence, then he and Nicola Sturgeon were saying in 2014 that they would be spending the money saved on Trident on childcare, then on “Good Morning Scotland” it was instead going to be spent on tackling youth unemployment and on colleges, and the Scottish Parliament motion in 2012 said it should be spent on welfare. So there is a long history of the SNP being utterly baffled about what this money is going to be spent on.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman be interested to hear that only a couple of weeks back I was being heckled that this magic money-tree could be spent on tax credits as well? That is another example to add to his long list.
Toby Perkins
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will put that on the end of my list. [Interruption.] It is an important point. We are having a laugh, but the truth of the matter is that people deserve clarity on what is being said in this House. This is a matter of the utmost importance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Toby Perkins
I will make a bit of progress, but I will happily take interventions later.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said a moment ago that Labour’s position needed clarifying, and I am happy to offer him that. Labour’s position, as agreed by the national policy forum in 2014 and approved by Labour party conference in Brighton this year, is that we are committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a continuous at-sea deterrent. That is the policy that was in the manifesto that all Labour Members of Parliament fought the 2015 general election on, and we are proud of the previous Labour Government’s approach to, and success on, disarmament. That saw Britain make huge progress in nuclear disarmament through international frameworks. We almost halved the number of operationally available warheads to fewer than 160 and reduced the number of deployed warheads on each submarine. We also scrapped the free-fall WE177 tactical nuclear weapons in 1998, making the UK the only recognised nuclear-armed non-proliferation treaty country to possess just one nuclear system. All that is simply a declaration of fact.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has recently been elected to be the leader of the Labour party and his views on the subject are well known. He appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) to be his shadow Secretary of State for Defence knowing her clear position on this question.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he is conducting this part of the debate. Will the review his party is carrying out consider the implications for HMNB Clyde, the submarine base at Faslane and for the Royal Naval Armament Depot Coulport and also the implications for Plymouth?
Toby Perkins
I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. This is very much a question about our military capability, but we can never ignore the fact that it is a very important economic regeneration question, too.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North announced at conference, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence will lead a review on all aspects of our defence policy including our nuclear deterrent. She has been clear that she is going to lead an evidence-based review in an open-minded, inclusive and transparent way that investigates the issues that have been reviewed on many occasions and also searches for any new relevant evidence.
Michael Fallon
The hon. Gentleman is doing something very important now: explaining how this review will operate. He says his hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State will lead the review; will that be led with Ken Livingstone or without him?
Toby Perkins
If the right hon. Gentleman had been slightly more patient, I would have got to precisely that point. If he bears with me, I will be able to enlighten him.
As I made clear, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood will be leading that review, and my very next sentence is that, as is standard for policy commissions that will feed into the national policy forum, a member of the national executive committee, Ken Livingstone, will co-convene that review on behalf of the NEC. But, as the leader of our party said at conference and reiterated yesterday, it will be led by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood.
Several hon. Members rose—
Toby Perkins
Let me make a little progress, because many Members wish to contribute to the debate and I am keen to give them an opportunity to do so.
It is really important for our politics and for those on both sides of the debate that we all embrace the opportunity to debate the cases for and against. Politics is changing; there is a mood out there for more transparency, not just in our party but in society as a whole. So we in the Labour party welcome this opportunity.
Pursuing a policy of multilateral, not unilateral, disarmament has been the accepted positions of the major parties in British politics for 30 years and, as a result, many of these issues have not been the subject of widespread and inclusive debate. We in the Labour party welcome this opportunity, and as someone who willingly supported the position the Labour party fought the last general election on, I say that all of us who support maintaining a nuclear presence should not be afraid to allow open and honest debate of this important issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Toby Perkins
I am going to crack on, because I know many Members want to contribute. I will try and take some more interventions towards the end of my speech.
It would clearly be ludicrous for me to pretend that there are not differences of opinion within the parliamentary Labour party and the wider party on whether this is the right policy. In the end, national party conference and the NPF will decide what the Labour party’s approach to this question will be in the future, but this year’s Labour party conference concluded that there were more pressing contemporary motions to debate and so the NPF report reaffirmed the party’s support for the continuous at-sea deterrent.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Labour party UK conference, but I notice that he does not mention the Labour party Scottish conference, which voted against Trident. Does that count for absolutely nothing, as the hon. Gentleman’s boss told her Labour party colleagues? Scotland just doesn’t matter, does it?
Toby Perkins
I have to say that I think those kinds of comments are utterly offensive. The truth of the matter is—[Interruption.] Once again, we are discussing an important matter, and the people are watching and people’s jobs are on the line, and SNP Members are laughing their way through this debate. The truth of the matter is that the Scottish Labour party had a vote at its conference, and of course that will be considered as part of all the many contributions made to this debate. The views of many people with a whole variety of opinions will be considered. The vote that took place and the views of individual members will be considered as part of that.
Angela Smith
My hon. Friend will understand, as a neighbouring MP, how important the Trident successor programme contract will be to places such as Sheffield, in terms of jobs in the supply chain. The tone of today’s debate underlines the importance of the debate on Trident and the fact that it is a UK matter. It deserves a UK-oriented focus, not a narrow, nationalist outlook.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the supply chain to this project, not just in the areas where it will be built but right across the country. This is a decision for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is one that we will all be responsible for, and that we will all have an opportunity to benefit from.
In the light of the lengthy procurement process required for complex weapons systems, Parliament voted in 2007 to
“maintain the strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the existing system”.
The Secretary of State went into greater detail on the history of that decision earlier. We should also remember that there are 28 NATO alliance members who are offered protection by each other. The fact that our contribution through Trident is a vital reassurance was brought home to me on a recent trip to Brussels to meet NATO allies.
If Britain and France appeared to be weakening their nuclear contribution, there is no guarantee that other allies would not decide that they could no longer be secure under the NATO umbrella or that they would not look to procure their own deterrents. Our own unilateralism could, in fact, lead to an increase in the number of nuclear states. Today’s shooting down of a Russian aircraft, apparently by Turkish forces, should underline for us how precious that interconnection and mutuality is, how unpredictable the world is, and how important it is for those NATO allies on the southern and eastern borders of NATO that the UK sends a message to those who threaten us that we will be resolute and trustworthy.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I respect utterly the way in which the hon. Gentleman is addressing this issue. He talks about the Labour party reviewing its policies, but will he address the worrying point that, whatever the outcome of the review, the leader of the Labour party has made it clear that he would in no circumstances use the deterrent? Has the party’s policy not therefore already been decided? Even if Labour decides to go ahead with Trident, its leader has said that he would not use it, thereby denying its potency as a deterrent.
Toby Perkins
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but this project will be valuable to our country over 25 to 30 years and beyond. When we are making these significant infrastructure decisions, the day-to-day details are perhaps less important than the longer-term capability.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), the shadow Minister said earlier that the review was to be co-convened by Ken Livingstone. Will he clarify exactly what he meant by “co-convened”?
Toby Perkins
The review is being led by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence. I shall not go into the arcane details of Labour party processes, but a member of the national executive committee is involved in supporting that process. That is the role that Ken Livingstone will play.
As I said a moment ago, this is not the first time that SNP Members have brought this question to the House, but they will know that their own approach to defence has failed to stand up to close scrutiny. Their White Paper that preceded their failed referendum campaign was clearly uncosted and provided no breakdown of costs for equipment, personnel or budgets.
Toby Perkins
I will not give way again; I am going to complete my speech—[Interruption.] We listened to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for quite some time, and I still do not know what he really thinks. The SNP’s White Paper failed to confront the contradictions between the party’s desire to join NATO and its desire to remove all nuclear weapons from Scottish soil. It was clear from the hon. Gentleman’s contribution that the SNP had no understanding of what would be involved when it said that it wanted to sign up to NATO. It thought that it could be a part of the alliance while being somehow removed from NATO policies. It cannot have its cake and eat it.
Brendan O’Hara
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is no such thing as a non-nuclear member of NATO? Does he not understand that the past two Secretaries-General of NATO have come from non-nuclear countries—namely, Denmark and Norway?
Toby Perkins
This is not a question of what my opinion is; it is a matter of simple fact that NATO is a nuclear alliance. Membership of NATO, which the SNP supports, requires allies to be members of the NATO nuclear alliance and to sit on the appropriate committees. So the fact is: an independent Scotland that was part of NATO would be covered by the nuclear umbrella. To be frank, I suspect that it is precisely because it would be covered in that way, with all the strength and security that that would offer, that it wants to be a member of NATO. That would give assurance to its own members. This is not a question of my opinion; it is a simple statement of fact.
Toby Perkins
No, I am going to finish in a moment.
On the back of yesterday’s strategic defence and security review, the Government must clarify a number of the urgent issues that have been touched on already today. First, will they give us a breakdown of the new cost estimates for the Successor fleet that they have provided? Specifically, what are the latest figures for warhead and infrastructure refurbishment? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the Treasury is to take the lead on the procurement of the Vanguard Successor class? If so, will he explain why? In setting out the mechanics of that arrangement, can he explain what it says about the level of confidence the Chancellor has in the Ministry of Defence? What input will Defence procurement experts have into the Treasury’s work on this? Was the decision made with the support of the Secretary of State for Defence, and if so, why did he think the matter would be better handled outside his own Department? Thirdly, will the Government clarify the timescales of the Successor programme? What criteria did they use to decide to further extend the life of the existing fleet? What is the strategy underpinning that decision? And, most importantly, can the Department resolutely guarantee that the decision will not adversely impact on the maintenance of our continuous at-sea deterrent posture?
I hope that the Minister for Defence Procurement will have an opportunity to respond to my questions. They are questions that he might reasonably have expected from the Members who called the debate, as they have had much longer to scrutinise the Government on this matter, but of course they are only interested in highlighting the difficulties that they perceive in the Labour party.
In summary, the Labour party’s review, under the stewardship of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, will consider any new evidence. It will examine the views of people from across the spectrum of opinions. It will allow people across the party, in the trade union movement and in communities right across the land to engage in the debate. It will learn about the facts and debunk the myths, as part of a national conversation. We will not shrink from the debates; we will relish them. This is an issue on which we believe there needs to be more light and less heat. We will not play political games with an issue as important as this, but the House can be assured that when that review has been concluded, the Labour party will have a position that has been the subject of the widest public debate in the history of military decision making. People will be able to have real confidence that the position we reach is one that the party—and, indeed, the country—can support with confidence.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. A great many people have indicated to me that they would like to speak in the debate. The House will be aware that another important debate is to follow, so I shall therefore have to impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of six minutes, starting with immediate effect as we hear from Mrs Sheryll Murray.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Members will know of my special interest in the Royal Navy, as the mother of a serving Royal Navy warfare officer, although I am absolutely sure that my daughter would want to stick to surface ships rather than serving on one of the four Vanguard class submarines. I am really pleased that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) has joined the family of people in this House who have a connection with the Royal Navy, and I hope that she will make many contributions to these debates.
It is now more than 70 years since these bombs were used in anger. We must remember that this is not new technology, and that the threat is real. That is why we must have a credible nuclear deterrent that others believe we will use if we are attacked. A continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is essential, because the deterrent has to be credible. It gives the UK the ability to respond instantly from a moveable location; that assists in providing security against any possible threats. Throughout my life, under Labour and Conservative Governments, we have had a credible deterrent, because we had the leadership to back it up.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The hon. Lady and many of her colleagues have criticised the Leader of the Opposition for saying that he would never fire Trident, presumably because it is not a deterrent if we promise not to use it. Will she tell us in what circumstances she would have it on her conscience to launch an attack that would annihilate tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of innocent, unarmed civilians?
Mrs Murray
Having the deterrent and leading people to think we can use it is what the deterrent is about. It is no good publicising the fact that it will never be fired; that is a useless deterrent.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Let me try to put it in simpler terms, for those who struggle to understand what a deterrent is, by using the analogy of a burglar alarm. We have a burglar alarm at home that we turn on when we go out, because we hope it will put people off breaking in; and we have a nuclear deterrent, which is there when we go to bed, to keep our country safe.
Mrs Murray
We also need to remember that the UK’s nuclear deterrent contributes to our collective security as part of NATO. If the UK did not have an at-sea deterrent, NATO’s collective security would be weakened, leaving the UK dependent on others. That seems to be what the Scottish National party is determined that it wants.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
On the message of deterrence, does not having nuclear weapons mean that we are the most direct threat to other states that have them? Rather than the weapons being a deterrent, do they not make us a key target in this family of nations?
Mrs Murray
A deterrent is extremely important, and that is precisely what this is; it is not there to use in anger. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the words I started with: the last time these bombs were used in anger was 70 years ago. I am speaking today not just because I believe in a credible nuclear deterrent—I do—but because of the importance it has in my constituency. Trident has provided a massive amount of employment for my constituents, in the same way that Faslane and Coulport provide a massive amount of employment north of the border.
Mrs Murray
I am sorry, but I have used up my time. The repair, refuelling and refit of the Vanguard class submarines is carried out in the D154 submarine support facilities at Devonport, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). Devonport’s expertise and experience should be used in any future programme. As a local county councillor at the time, I will never forget standing by the banks of the River Tamar in Mount Edgcumbe park, watching the first Vanguard submarine edge her way around Drake’s island and into Devonport dockyard for its refit. Continuing to refuel and refit these submarines at Devonport is likely to safeguard up to 2,000 jobs. I fully support the Government in their goal of having successor submarines replace the Vanguard class ones, and having a credible nuclear deterrent to protect this nation for decades.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
What a pleasure it is to follow such a thoughtful and well-informed speech from the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray). I wish you had been in for the start of this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because what a shambles it was. Let me give you, for background, the context in which the debate was called for. The SNP is presiding over a disgraceful mismanagement of the core activities of government in its nation. Let me tell the House of the dreadful mess the SNP is making of health and education; there is a need to do so.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Let me clarify that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way right now, although he has indicated that he will do so shortly.
Alan Brown
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman says he is going to dig into the Scottish Government’s record on health and education, but I do not think that is applicable to today’s motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) is saying, and I will decide if he has strayed from the motion. At the moment, my interpretation is that he is introducing his speech and that he will come to the precise point of the motion very shortly.
John Woodcock
You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, SNP Members do not like people holding them to account for their terrible failure. I was just explaining the disgraceful mess that they are making of schools in Scotland, where the poorest children are being left behind—
John Woodcock
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am not giving way. I would have been happy to take an intervention from every single one of you robots—you are getting your instruction—but the proposer of the motion refused point blank to take my intervention, so I am not taking any from a single one of you.
John Nicolson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May we have some clarification on whether the charming expression “robot” is parliamentary language or not?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Yes, Mr Nicolson, I was just turning over in my mind whether the description “robot” for a Member of this House would be considered derogatory. I have come to the conclusion that in some circumstances it might, and in some it might not. For the moment, I am concluding, for my own peace of mind, that the hon. Gentleman was thinking of a high-functioning, intelligent robot. Therefore, for the moment, I will not call him to order for the use of the word, but I am sure the House will be warned that we should be very careful in our use of language.
Ian Paisley
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification: I thought the hon. Gentleman called the hon. Members “Roberts”, and anyone from Scotland should not mind that reference, bearing in mind Robbie the Bruce.
Madam Deputy Speaker
No, on the contrary. As to Mr Paisley’s point of order, every eldest male member of my family for the past 100 years has been called Robert; it must be a good thing.
Mr Jamie Reed
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that colleagues from the SNP will misreport this debate on Twitter, would the use of the term “cybernat” be acceptable?
Madam Deputy Speaker
We will have no more points of order on this issue. Any term that is considered to be in any way derogatory towards an honourable Member of this House will not be allowed, and I will be listening very carefully for the rest of the debate.
John Woodcock
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to refer to SNP Members as honourable robots if that is any help, but robots they are, following their instructions in an extraordinary unity almost never seen before in this place.
I was making a point about the failure on hospitals over which the SNP is presiding—there is failure on waiting times, intolerable pressure on nurses and so on. Instead of addressing those points, the SNP seeks this parliamentary distraction of a debate on Trident, and we will not fall for it.
Ian Paisley
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way, because he was not given way to earlier in the debate, and he should have been. He has set out the context of the debate. Does it surprise him that today, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Sinn Féin, which butchered and bombed people across the entire United Kingdom, has a similar motion calling for the cancellation of Trident? Would he like to reflect on that?
John Woodcock
I do not know. It is certainly something on which the Scottish National party Member who winds up may wish to reflect. I will go back to the SNP in a moment, but first let me implore the Minister to respond to my questions, because, understandably, I was not able to intervene on the Secretary of State for a second time earlier in the debate. In his winding-up speech—or he can intervene on me now—will the Minister make it clear that the change in management structure for this programme will in no way affect the superb workforce in Barrow-in-Furness, Derby, and so many constituencies around the country? The measure has long been discussed and is designed to get increased effectiveness out of the programme.
Furthermore, will the Minister comment on the extra pressure that may be placed on the ageing Vanguard class hulls by the further delay, and on whether the Royal Navy and his Department have carried out the scoping that will be required because of the extra delay in the in-service date for the new boats?
This is a debate about the Scottish National party, whose Members are sitting next to me. They seem perfectly happy to scrap 10,000 jobs in Faslane.
John Woodcock
If everybody will sit down, I will explain my views. I would have been happy to have taken all these SNP interventions, but the proposer of the motion—the honourable chief robot—refused to allow me to intervene even once, so I will not take their interventions. They would be happy to throw on the unemployment scrapheap—
John Woodcock
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not give way to any of them. I wonder if you can explain that to them. It does not matter how many times they ask, I will not give way to them.
In the remaining time that I have, let me quickly read a list of some of the constituencies in Scotland that are affected by the submarine supply chain: Argyll and Bute, which we have already mentioned; Aberdeen North; Coatbridge; Chryston and Bellshill; Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East; Dunfermline and West Fife; East Dunbartonshire; East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow; East Renfrewshire; Glasgow Central; Glasgow North West; Glasgow South; Glasgow South West; Glenrothes; Gordon; Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath; Linlithgow and East Falkirk; Livingston; Midlothian; Motherwell and Wishaw; Paisley and Renfrewshire North; West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine; and West Dunbartonshire.
John Woodcock
I will not give way. SNP Members would throw their constituents on the unemployment scrapheap.
John Woodcock
I will not give way, because I will not get any more time. I want to finish on the argument, which has been made clearly, that it is morally indefensible for a state to possess nuclear weapons. I do not agree with that at all, because they are there to prevent nuclear weapons from being fired. However, if the SNP thinks that it is morally indefensible or even “repugnant” to possess such weapons, why is it happy to be under the nuclear umbrella of another nation? It is not the case that other NATO members do not have nuclear weapons. I do not think that I can use the word hypocrisy, but it is a rank wrong that the party feels able to shelter under that umbrella while being happy to name-call the rest of the United Kingdom for wanting to keep nuclear weapons.
The question is not whether we do, or do not, go ahead with Trident, because the votes on that are absolutely nailed on. This will go past the point of no return. The real question exposed in this debate is: in which SNP constituency—which place in Scotland—will the nuclear toxic waste, which the SNP has admitted it will take, go?
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
This is an extremely important debate. Already this afternoon, we have heard some errant wrongs in the nature of our NATO alliance. I hope that Members will forgive me for taking a moment to correct them. NATO is a nuclear pact. NATO demands nuclear capability. NATO requires states to allow deployable nuclear weapons. It is simply incorrect to say that any member state can be a NATO member without tolerating, allowing, encouraging and even permitting the deployment of nuclear weapons from its states.
Germany has nuclear-capable artillery. Belgium has nuclear-capable aircraft. Denmark has runways for such aircraft and has subs basing for it in Danish waters. Every NATO state is nuclear-capable and allows the deployment and the firing of nuclear weapons from its territory. That is part of the 1949 alliance. If countries do not like it, they should not sign it; that is very, very clear.
NATO countries sign that alliance for a very good reason. It is because nuclear weapons work. Since 1949, no two nuclear states have fought each other or gone to war in any way. Why? Because nuclear weapons are appalling; they are utterly awful.
James Cartlidge
Does my hon. Friend agree with the many venerable academics who believe that, had it not been for nuclear weapons, it is almost certain that in the cold war period we would have had a third conventional world war, which would have been far more bloody and brutal than the first or even the second?
Tom Tugendhat
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention. The appalling nature of nuclear weapons is exactly what keeps us safe. The very fact that they are an existential threat to so many regimes and to so many dreadful leaders around the world is exactly what puts them off. Few bunkers and no society could survive a nuclear attack, and that is exactly why nuclear weapons work: nobody wishes to face them.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
My hon. Friend is giving a very powerful speech. Does he agree that NATO is about making a conventional or a nuclear attack on its members absolutely futile? In short, in the nuclear age, the enemy is war itself.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, in highlighting the fact that war is the real enemy, we need look only at the loss of life that we have seen from war this century. In the first and second world wars, we saw terrible destruction from conventional weapons. Ironically, those weapons were stopped by the two attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Though those attacks were utterly awful, and I will not in any way say that they were not, it is quite clear that what they did was prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives—not just American lives, but Japanese lives too. Many prisoners of war, many of our relatives, survived the second world war—I am talking about the relatives of Members not just on the Government Benches but on the Opposition Benches too—because the horror of those two attacks brought an early end to that war, and thank God they did, because hundreds of thousands of lives were saved.
However, nuclear weapons do not work alone. They work as part of the spectrum of defence. They are part of everything from the infantry soldier with his bayonet right the way through to the Trident nuclear submarine. They work across the entire spectrum, because it is only the range that allows Her Majesty’s armed forces to intervene at an appropriate level on each occasion. In exactly the same way as a diplomat requires the military for his words to have credibility, so too the soldier requires the submarine to know that he will not be undermined by an attack from one of the other states that may sympathise with the enemy.
John Glen
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful contribution. In his considerable experience working in the Ministry of Defence, has he ever seen a viable reorientation of defence expenditure away from the nuclear deterrent which would give us the same level of assurance around our defence?
Tom Tugendhat
Some work has been done on that, but only at a very basic level. The truth is that, when people rightly talk about the cost of defence and the cost of the nuclear deterrent, what they rarely consider is how much the conventional alternative costs. If we truly wish to deter and to persuade an enemy that we will not be steamrollered by their wish or blackmailed by their desires, we need to have a deterrent that allows us not to strike first, but to strike back. No conventional force offers the same pound-for-pound capability as the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. Members may not like it, but that is why the nuclear deterrent is the cheapest alternative.
Carol Monaghan
The deterrent is not working when Russian submarines in our waters are being spotted not by maritime patrol aircraft or vessels, but by fishing boats. We are now in the ridiculous situation where our deterrent is either to nuke them or to chase them away with bayonets.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady makes an entertaining but factually unsound point. Our capabilities are to chase them away with our hunter-killer submarines and the Royal Navy’s patrol vessels, and that is exactly what they are doing. Most important, when we see those Russian submarines coming towards us, we do not immediately think, “Let’s bow to Mr Putin’s latest desires and hobble ourselves to the Kremlin’s wishes.” Instead, we think, “They won’t dare, because they know we can.” That is what grants us the independence of action and guarantees us the independence of movement that we require as an active supporter of human rights and of the dignity of humanity in this world.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the ultimate proof that they are a deterrent is that although submarines may be circling the United Kingdom, they are not firing missiles?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
Looking around the world, we might think that the real threat today is militant jihadism or a dirty bomb. That is, of course, true in the immediate sense, but I wonder how many Members on either side of the House would have looked around the world 20 years ago and said, “We’ve got to be worried about ISIS.”
Tom Tugendhat
Forgive me, but I must make some progress. How many of us would have thought that, rather than being one our allies, as we very much hoped she would be in the 1990s, Russia would be resurgent after the cold war, changing the borders of a European country for the first time since 1945 and sponsoring militias in Ukraine that intend to bring death not only to the peacekeepers we send, but to civilian aircraft flying overhead? Who would have predicted that? I would wager that no one would have predicted it. Because of that inability to predict, it is essential that we in the United Kingdom guarantee the ultimate security for us and our children. It is not enough to wish for peace—we must work for it and fight for it, and the nuclear deterrent is the ultimate proof that we will both work and fight for our own security.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I should start by declaring an interest as a member of the Scottish CND.
Like the other members of the Public Accounts Committee, I have an advantage in approaching this debate, because we took evidence from the permanent under-secretary to the Ministry of Defence.
Deidre Brock
Please let me make a little progress.
We heard for ourselves the MOD’s misgivings about Trident and how it is unaffordable and threatens spending on other equipment.
The Prime Minister’s war drums are beating. He wants to open up another war front in Syria, to add to the current commitments of service personnel around the globe, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. While we have troops engaged abroad, the MOD was telling us that the inventory of support matériel for the armed forces has been cut by a quarter in the past four years, and that the funding is about to be slashed from £30 billion to less than £10 billion by keeping what was described as
“the minimum amount of kit”.
Spending on Trident, however, is to be protected and enhanced.
We were told that a huge gap of some £8.5 billion exists between what the generals, admirals and air chief marshals say the armed forces need and what Whitehall is prepared to provide. In the words of the permanent under-secretary,
“a process of going through what people want and saying, ‘I know you like that fantastic new thing. Actually, what you need is this’, will lower the bill.”
Whitehall bean-counters will be telling the armed forces what they really need, but spending on Trident will be sacrosanct. There will be no back-up body armour for troops on the battlefield, but there will be plenty of cash for Trident. Provision of troop transport options will be a matter for Whitehall, but the transport of weapons of mass destruction cannot be questioned.
We were told that the nuclear enterprise is what keeps the MOD’s senior civil servants awake at night. The permanent under-secretary said that the current annual running cost of Trident is
“in excess of £3.5 billion”,
but that if it is renewed the figure will rise to more than £5 billion a year. He said that he could drive savings in other areas,
“but that project is a monster and it is an incredibly complicated area in which to try to estimate future costs.”
Therefore, while Trident—an unusable and abhorrent abuse of scientific discovery and human imagination—can name its price and pick the pockets of any other budget in the MOD, other parts of the service are resourced or starved on a Whitehall whim.
Tom Tugendhat
I appreciate that the hon. Lady was in Australia at the time, acting in various episodes of “Home and Away”, but is she aware that during the 1970s the CND was largely funded by the KGB, as the Mitrokhin archive proves? Some of these arguments therefore sound a little hollow when they are made with the cash of our enemies.
Deidre Brock
That is a very amusing intervention, given that I am quoting the MOD’s so-called chief executive. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are not worthy of this place.
The air crews that the Prime Minister wants in the Syrian skies cannot be sure of a reliable supply of spare parts for their planes, but Trident will always have whatever it needs.
There is another insult in the midst of that mess, as the MOD outsources logistics and supply for armed forces to Leidos, an American firm that started out providing advice to the American defence nuclear industry. Those of us who campaigned in the independence referendum will recall being told that no vital pieces of defence infrastructure are provided by companies from outwith our borders. How things change and yet stay so much the same.
We might also want to take note of the legal position. My constituent Ronald King Murray—Lord Murray—who is a former Lord Advocate for Scotland and a respected legal thinker, has offered the opinion that nuclear weapons are illegal under international law. Given what the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I point out that Lord Murray was a serving soldier preparing to attack Japanese positions when the first atomic bomb was dropped in Hiroshima 70 years ago, and he thinks it may well have saved his life. However, he formed the opinion then, in spite of the preservation of his own life, that the weapon is probably illegal, and his opinion has not changed in the seven decades since.
Lord Murray suggests that the International Court of Justice might use the occasion of the case being brought by the Marshall Islands to update and enhance its 1996 ruling, which is that the use, or threatened use, of nuclear weapons was illegal. It may well decide now to rule that the possession of such weapons is illegal.
Deidre Brock
I have nearly finished. The Government might not wish to take any note of legal advice on military issues—some previous Governments have shown a reluctance to take such advice too—but surely Ministers will not wish to ignore the effect that renewing Trident would have on other areas of defence spending. They do not have to listen to us; they can speak to officials at the MOD—cancelling Trident would be very good for their sleep patterns.
Deidre Brock
I have nearly finished. The combined effects of spending cuts and the blind insistence on spending huge sums on a virility totem would leave poorly equipped frontline service personnel even worse off. I certainly hope that the Government would have the decency to consider them.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I was concerned to read that the motion for this debate has only one sentence:
“That this House believes that Trident should not be renewed.”
There is not much substance behind that, and as the debate goes on it worries me more and more. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) has questioned the legality of Trident. That is a matter for legal debate, but the fact is that it and nuclear weapons exist.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Given that so many nations have nuclear deterrents, does my hon. Friend agree that someone would have looked into that? Perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) should admit that she is wrong or that her argument is based on a personal interpretation.
Alec Shelbrooke
As my hon. Friend makes clear, a lot of legal advice on issues such as this is a matter of interpretation. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and say that we will not be involved in something that exists. The fact is that a nuclear threat exists.
About three years ago, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who is no longer in his place, and I went to Ukraine, to Kiev. This was after the Russian intervention in that area. As was mentioned earlier, the Budapest agreement of 1994 made it clear that, in return for unilateral disarmament, Ukraine’s borders would be protected by the United States, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. Yet, when the Russian Federation walked in, nothing could be done. As I mentioned in Foreign Office questions earlier today, the world’s attention may have shifted to the situation in the middle east and Syria, but there is a live war going on today in Ukraine. I hold the United States partly responsible for that, because a weak foreign policy by what I consider to be one of the worst Presidents of the United States has allowed Russia to take strategic decisions and walk into countries such as Ukraine, knowing that there was no deterrent. Deterrence is what this debate is about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) said, no one has a burglar alarm because they want people to burgle their house; they have one as a deterrent. It is incredible that in a world that is so dangerous and becoming more so, we have a debate whose purpose is to try to disarm us as if the rest of the world would then fall into line.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because his intervention makes my point: there was no deterrent to stop Russia going into Ukraine because President Putin rightly recognised that President Obama would not intervene in international affairs. There were no checks and balances—no counterweight to what has become a new superpower. Putin just walked in, and was allowed to do so.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that Ukraine was persuaded to give up its nuclear weapons, and as a result Putin has been able to ride roughshod over international agreements?
Alec Shelbrooke
Exactly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
This debate is not about war-mongering. It is not about a desire to launch nuclear weapons; it is the direct opposite. It is about the fact that a nuclear deterrent has prevented major world conflicts, but today we see that there are conflicts taking place. We talk about Daesh getting its hands on nuclear weapons, or about North Korea, which would be able to launch an attack on South Korea. Let us not forget that there was never a peace treaty between North Korea and South Korea. Technically they are still at war, but they have been able to face each other off with conventional weapons for several decades. If that game changed with nuclear weapons, there would have to be western intervention concerning South Korea to make sure that it could counteract that threat from North Korea; otherwise, hundreds of thousands of innocent people would be murdered by a regime with no other intention than wiping out its neighbour. That is what a deterrent prevents. That is why this debate is so important.
Nobody in this Chamber, nobody in NATO, nobody in the western world and probably not even President Putin would want to use nuclear weapons. That is not what this debate is about. It is about making sure that when something exists, those enemies who would use it do not have the opportunity to do so because they know it would be pointless. North Korea will not launch a nuclear weapon at South Korea if it knows that 10 seconds later it would disappear off the face of the map as well. However unpalatable that truth may be, that is the truth that has kept the peace.
If we consider the first world war, and then the second world war, which was fought with conventional weapons but had a much higher death toll and in which far more civilians were killed than in the first world war, we see that as technology advances and wars increase, more and more of the civilian population die. It was noticeable that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box earlier this week, he made it absolutely clear that military action that may be considered in Syria would be part of a wider programme with targeted intervention to try to prevent civilian deaths. Western leaders today spend most of their time trying to work out how we can intervene to reduce civilian deaths, and there is nothing better for that than having the Government who may be pushing their people into war know that they themselves would be wiped out. That is hugely important.
There has been a lot of talk about whether Trident is the right thing to spend money on. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said, it amounts to 0.2% of GDP. What would a war, even one fought with conventional weapons to which we may not be able to respond, do to the GDP of Europe, of the western world?
Alec Shelbrooke
I agree with my hon. Friend, although I do not want to be too skewed towards other debates. My hon. Friend’s comment is important, though, because this country cannot have a solid defence or a capable strategic defence review unless we have a strong economy. That has to go hand in hand with this debate.
None of us today wants to renew Trident because we are war-mongers. We are the exact opposite. But we have to be aware of the threats in our world—threats that we have to be capable of responding to even though we hope that we never have to respond to them. The last 70-odd years has proved that. In the Cuban missile crisis, when President Kennedy said that we were eyeball to eyeball with the Russians, they backed down because they knew that doing otherwise would mean the destruction of their own country as well as the country that they were attacking. That is the proof that, however unpalatable Trident renewal may be, the nuclear deterrent works.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
This is a matter of profound national importance. It is a debate on the security of our nation, but it is also about our standing as a nation among our allies and in the eyes of our adversaries. The history of our position as a nuclear power stems from our desire to protect ourselves and not to shy away from our responsibilities to our allies.
We must acknowledge the historically critical role that the Labour party has played in developing the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent. It is important to recognise too the Secretary of State’s call today for consensus on this matter, which I warmly welcome. It was the then Labour Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, who in 1945 began the preliminary work and feasibility studies that paved the way for the independent nuclear deterrent. Following the end of nuclear co-operation with the United States in the shape of the McMahon Act in Congress, in October 1946 the Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, pushed ahead with plans for Britain to develop our own system.
Tom Tugendhat
Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to join him in praising Mr Attlee, indeed Major Attlee, who fought with enormous courage in the first world war? Does he not think that his former leader would have looked at the nuclear alliance and thought, as the Romans did, “Si vis pacem, para bellum.”—“If you seek peace, prepare for war”?
Mr Reed
I absolutely agree: Attlee invented the nuclear deterrent, so of course he would have agreed with that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to today’s debate, which I welcomed.
One reason the debate is so important to me is that my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Barrow and Furness have always been at the heart of our independent deterrent, and that is a source of immense pride in Cumbria. Not only that, but I was elected, as were my colleagues, on a clear manifesto commitment that reads:
“Labour remains committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear capability, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent”.
A number of colleagues have mentioned NATO. The principle of maintaining an independent deterrent is clearly demonstrated through our commitment to our NATO allies.
Angela Smith
I have visited the Barrow shipyard, so I totally understand the passion of the workforce and the commitment to the Successor programme project. It was not only Major Attlee who supported the nuclear deterrent but figures on the left of the Labour party, including Nye Bevan, who said that we should not walk
“naked into the conference chamber”.
Mr Reed
Absolutely—I could not put it better. It is one of our party’s greatest achievements, and it should be recognised at every opportunity. I thank my hon. Friend for her steadfast support for the industry and the deterrent. She knows precisely what this means for the manufacturing sector in her constituency.
Alan Brown
To bring things into a more modern context, does the hon. Gentleman agree with one of my constituency predecessors—Lord Browne, the former Defence Secretary—who drew attention today to the January 2013 report by the US Defence Science Board, which basically said that nuclear weapons are at risk of cyber-threat and might be useless for deployment following cyber-attacks?
Mr Reed
No, I do not agree with that.
The most recent strategic concept from NATO reaffirmed its long-standing policy that
“as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance. Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of NATO’s strategy.”
Mr Reed
Forgive me if I do not take any more interventions. I need to make progress.
The strategic concept continues:
“The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance”,
including, crucially, the UK. Although that clearly demonstrates the treaty obligations that we must maintain with regard to our allies in NATO and our NATO membership, it espouses the single most fundamental principle underpinning the argument for maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent: while other nations have nuclear weapons, so should we. This is not about bravado, international one-upmanship or, as has bizarrely been said, a virility test. It is a clear demonstration of strength and capability which provides deterrence. Although the threat from other nation states has reduced over the past few decades, only the most naive would say that it has fully diminished. While there are nuclear weapons in the world, the only effective deterrent is maintaining our own independent nuclear weapons. Unilateralism will never work. Believe me, this party has tested that theory to destruction. Only a multinational approach can rid the world of nuclear missiles.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Reed
I will not take further interventions.
We have managed to maintain our deterrent while reducing our warheads which, as a piece of policy craft, should be acknowledged and celebrated. We are the only major advanced nuclear country to demonstrate that.
Moving on to the economic side of the issue—we cannot disregard that—people well versed in the history of military and civil nuclear engineering will understand clearly the benefits of this industry to my constituents in west and south-west Cumbria. The expertise amassed over 70 years in Copeland and in Barrow-in-Furness has cemented our place as world leaders in nuclear technology and knowledge. It has provided a basis for highly skilled jobs that have enabled communities to benefit from vast private sector investment such as new nuclear reactors, alongside the Successor programme in Barrow-in-Furness. Our position as world leaders has been hard earned, principally by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (John Woodcock) and me, by the trade unions, and by decades of work in the nuclear industry. Maintaining skills and expertise is crucial to the economic wellbeing and growth not just of my constituency but of my county and, indeed, the north-west of England.
The Trident replacement is forecast to generate as many as 26,000 jobs throughout the UK, with more than 6,000 at the BAE shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness where the submarines will be built. The livelihoods of many people in the south of my constituency depend on the renewal of Trident. People who advocate defence diversification—we heard from the Secretary of State that the GMB has described that as pie in the sky— have yet to put forward a comprehensive plan for how they would achieve that. We also have to take into account the impact on smaller companies that make up the supply chain. The 2014 update to Parliament on the project states:
“Work done to date has identified over 850 potential suppliers across the UK. This underlines the fact that the nuclear deterrent represents a significant national undertaking, which is drawing on cutting edge capabilities, innovation, design and engineering skills available in the UK, and is providing employment opportunities and development prospects for a substantial number of apprentices, trainees and graduates in a wide range of technical and other disciplines.”
The expertise, the cutting-edge capabilities and the innovation all have their birthplace in west and south-west Cumbria. The benefits of those opportunities for thousands of apprentices, graduates and trainees will be felt across every single community that I represent. Opponents of the renewal of Trident will make the case that the skills can be deployed in other industries without ever really making it clear what those industries are and how they intend to put in place the comprehensive retraining plans necessary to redeploy nuclear workers. In fact, the proponents of diversification have had nearly four decades to come up with a plan to demonstrate how diversification would work, and we are still waiting. There is no plan, and there never will be a plan.
We have to approach the world as we find it, not as we would want it to be. To vote against the renewal of Trident is to vote potentially to put thousands of people out of work, to waste knowledge and expertise amassed over decades, to neglect our duties to our allies, to diminish our ability to defend ourselves and certainly to diminish our standing in the world. Britain has proudly punched above its weight on the world stage for centuries. We are a global leader. We should never step back from this responsibility.
I find myself in a position where I am proud to support my constituents, proud to support my constituency, proud to support my country, and proud to support Labour party policy in the best traditions of Clement Attlee.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I rise in support of renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. Before I speak about that, may I pay tribute to those Labour MPs who have put party politics to one side and are thinking very much of the British national interest? There is no Member of Parliament more valiant in that cause than the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who has been a shining example of what it means to stand up for one’s constituents. He has fought for the local economy that he represents and ensured that the arguments that he passionately believes in are held not just in the House but throughout the country. Many of us could learn from the work that he does on this important matter.
I grew up on the Clyde coast, not a million miles from Faslane. Indeed, I went to school in Dumbarton, which is close to Faslane, so I know how important HM Naval Base Clyde is to the local economy. With more than 8,000 jobs in the area by 2020, it is the engine of that part of Scotland. In fact, it is by far the largest employer in Scotland.
Carol Monaghan
In fact, there are many jobs associated with HM Naval Base Clyde, including support staff, staff in accommodation, and staff in local businesses. They would still be there if conventional warships were based in Faslane.
Mark Menzies
I admire the hon. Lady’s optimism, but we have been told that there will be 8,200 jobs—an increase—as a result of moving Astute-class submarines up there. Does she honestly expect us to believe that there would be that number of jobs, either direct or indirect, as a result of her party’s policy in an independent Scotland? In effect, the ships would be glorified fishery protection vessels, and they could be located anywhere.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Menzies
No, I will not give way.
That is what we are talking about. It is misleading at best to the people of Dunbartonshire to say that that number of jobs, jobs of that quality, and those skills will be there without a nuclear deterrent.
Brendan O'Hara
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the people of Argyll and Bute, and the people of Dumbarton are so unaware of the circumstances in which they live that at the general election they could not work that out for themselves? Had they not believed what we were saying, I would not have been elected and my hon. Friends who represent Dumbarton would not have been elected.
Mark Menzies
Absolutely. Elections are always referendums on the future. I spent the day with the hon. Gentleman on Thursday looking at the aircraft carriers. If we took HM Clyde out of the equation, along with Coulport, Faslane and the skills that those high-paid jobs bring, his constituency would be a far poorer place.
Mark Menzies
I will not give way, as I want to make progress.
The independent nuclear deterrent is vital to the future of this country. It is vital for our manufacturing base, and for our skills base and apprenticeships. I have constituents at BAE Systems in Warton and Samlesbury who are working on the Successor class programme. There are engineers and apprentices who look forward to working on that programme. The length and breadth of the United Kingdom, men and women, young and old, and those in apprenticeships across all skills bases will be dependent on the nuclear deterrent and the Successor class programme, and we ignore that at our peril. If the Successor class programme is taken out of the equation, the result is not just the loss of the independent nuclear deterrent, not just the threat to our national security and not just the devastating impact it would have on places such as the Clyde. All our communities would suffer as a result.
I beg the Labour party to come to its senses. It should not be down to independent-minded Labour MPs who passionately believe in national security to recognise that. It should come from the top down. I hope that as part of its defence review Labour will come to appreciate the unique importance of Trident and recognise that British national security cannot be put at risk. We cannot hope for a safer world; we have to work to secure it, and the deterrence provided by Trident is an integral part of that security. I hope the Labour party will not let us down at the crucial moment.
I put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State and the team at the Ministry of Defence. Yesterday, the strategic defence and security review outlined how conventional forces would fit in with the future of our country. We are not relying solely on Trident for our defence. I welcome the anti-submarine warfare capability aircraft that were announced yesterday, which will be based in Scotland and will play an integral part in looking after the deterrent.
Dr Whitford
Is it not noticeable that in the report published yesterday there were no threats in tier 1 for which Trident would be appropriate as a response?
Mark Menzies
We know that we live in an unpredictable world. Every strategic defence review has almost been redundant by the time the ink was dry on the paper. At the time of the previous review, no one foresaw the so-called Arab spring or a resurgent Russia. It is vital that the Government maintain all the ability to respond to a threat, regardless what it might look like. That never occurs at a time of our choosing.
Conventional weapons are at the heart of our defence. That is why the Government outlined yesterday across all three services a very clear strategy, ensuring that conventional weapons and the modernisation of our armed forces were integral to it. But they would not be as effective if the United Kingdom were stripped unilaterally of our nuclear deterrent. Ultimately, it is a weapon that we all hope and pray will never be used, but the very fact that we have it sends out a powerful message to any potential adversary that the United Kingdom takes our security seriously, takes its defence seriously, and will defend its allies in NATO. We are not a country that can sit back and hope that someone else will secure our future for us. When we have done that in the past, we have sometimes been found wanting. The United Kingdom must always look after its own defence. I hope Trident and Successor class submarines will always be at the heart of that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in a very important debate on a subject to which the House has not given sufficient time recently, although we have known for some years that we would have to address it. For the benefit of Government business managers, may I say that I think the House would be better served by a more substantial motion in Government time, which might allow wider consideration of the challenges that face us?
We are dealing today with an Opposition day debate. I listened with great care to the speech of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). It was remarkable that it focused on the position of the Labour party as much as it focused on the Government. That is a novel position for an Opposition day debate. In fairness, I am not entirely without sympathy for the approach, given the current difficulties in the Labour party. It is not that Labour lacks a clear position—in fact, I would suggest that Labour has too many clear positions and it is difficult to reconcile them all within the one party.
I have sympathy with the review that Labour is undertaking. I wish it well, but I have severe misgivings when I hear that Ken Livingstone has been put in charge of it. Putting Ken Livingstone in charge of a review of nuclear weaponry is a bit like putting King Herod in charge of the nursery.
I commend the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) for his contribution to the debate and the manner in which he made it. The review could do an awful lot worse than to take as its starting point the Trident alternatives review that was carried out at the behest of my party in the previous Government, which looked at various alternatives and different ways in which the question could be approached.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify the stance of his own party? A member who represents his party in my constituency claimed that we did not need a nuclear deterrent because we did not use it in the Falklands. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his party’s policy, please?
Mr Carmichael
I am not responsible for every contribution from every member of my party in every constituency, any more, I suspect, than the hon. Lady would want to be for her own party. I will come to my party’s position in a moment, because I think it is central to the debate and I want to put it on record. The hon. Lady has the advantage of being able to consider the terms of the amendment that was tabled but unfortunately was not selected for Division today.
It is worth remembering that we are having this debate only because the maingate decision, which was to have been taken in the previous Parliament, was delayed until this Parliament. When the Minister responds to the debate, I invite him to accept that although his party wanted to take that maingate decision in the last Parliament, events vindicate the decision that was made and this is the right point in the cycle to take it.
We live in an ever-changing and uncertain world. As the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), I think, said earlier, we cannot ignore the fact that nuclear weapons exist. I wish they could be uninvented, but they cannot. That is the basis on which we should approach this debate. It is not just about whether the position should be reviewed or not: it is about what the United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, can do to take a lead in the international community and among the nuclear powers to ensure that there is a serious movement towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
This was a formative debate in my early political years, as it probably was for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the 1987 general election, but the world was a very different place in 1987. The cold war was still at its height and the Soviet Union still existed. We have seen enormous change since that time, but the change has not all been in one direction. We have only to look at the situation in Ukraine and Crimea to realise that such old enmities never die. It is not pertinent to say what is a tier 1 or a tier 2 risk at this point. The question is what the situation will be in the future.
Having said all that, I would still say that the Government’s determination to pursue a like-for-like replacement for Trident ignores the different world in which we now live and misses the opportunity that we have as a force for multilateral nuclear disarmament to take a different approach—to take a step down the nuclear ladder—and as a nuclear power to meet our obligations under the various nuclear non-proliferation treaties.
When the Secretary of State addressed the House, he spoke of what he has done to reduce the number of nuclear warheads currently available for deployment. I commend him for that. He lamented the fact that this has elicited little response from other nuclear or nuclear-aspirant countries. I suspect that that is because despite the reduction in the number of warheads, the Government continue to cleave to the notion of continuous at-sea deterrence. The time has now come for a very long and serious look at whether that remains an appropriate approach. My party has reached the conclusion that it is no longer necessary or appropriate. We would like to see an end to continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence, while of course maintaining our deterrence capability. That would allow us to take something of a lead in taking the step down—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) wishes to intervene, I will take an intervention, but I will not take sedentary chuntering.
John Woodcock
My hon. Friends and I are baffled about how this part-time deterrence would work. Why would it save money, how would it stop the first-strike capability, and what would the submarines do when they were not deterring?
Mr Carmichael
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a serious debate about this, then I am well in the market for that. He should understand, though, that this is a legitimate and substantial proposal that commands a lot of support among many people who understand and accept the need for nuclear weaponry but are prepared to look at how we use our position as a nuclear power and as a proponent of nuclear disarmament rather than as something that is—[Interruption.] Before he continues to shake his head, he might well find that his own party’s review comes up with something very similar to this. He should be careful not to disparage today what he might find in his manifesto tomorrow.
It is unfortunate that this debate has occasionally generated more heat than light, but it is an important one that this House has to have, and I suspect that we shall be returning to it in the months and years to come. When we do so, it should be on the basis that this is our opportunity to be a leading force for nuclear disarmament in the world; it is not all just about the renewal of weaponry.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It has been a lively debate and we are running out of time. After the next contribution I will have to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to four minutes.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for permission to speak in this debate. I apologise to the House for the fact that because I was chairing a public sitting of the Defence Committee I could not be here for the opening speeches. For that reason, too, I have deliberately refrained from making any interventions.
Although the issue of strategic nuclear deterrence is very divisive, we can all agree that the calibre of the speeches on both sides of the House—and on both sides of the argument—has been very high indeed. If the Chairman of the Defence Committee had to mirror the views of its members, I would probably spend just over 90% of my time arguing passionately in favour of the nuclear deterrent and just under 10% of it arguing equally passionately against it, because we have, and are delighted to have, on the Committee the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), who is a consistent and thoughtful opponent of Trident.
Fortunately, however, I do not have to mirror those views. The views I am expected to put forward are clearly marked as my own, and they have been pretty much the same for 35 years, half of them outside this House and the remainder inside this House. On my having been elected to chair the Defence Committee, something may have come as a bit of a surprise to people who looked at the list of the five hon. Members from the Labour Opposition who were kind enough to nominate me to that role. One was the shadow Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and that is hardly a surprise. However, at the other end of the spectrum, I was fortunate enough to enjoy the support of the current Leader of the Opposition. The reason was that we both agree on one thing. Even though our views on whether we should continue to have a nuclear deterrent are diametrically opposed, we both agree that both sides of the case have a good argument to make, and that when we make it on the Floor of the House, everybody learns something.
With the support of the now Leader of the Opposition, I managed to secure, on 17 January 2013, the first full debate on the whole issue of Trident and deterrence in the main Chamber since the vote on 14 March 2007 when the initial gate was approved. Anybody who really wants to see both sides of the intellectual argument at their best could do no better than to get a copy of that debate, from which I shall repeat my five main military arguments.
I fear that I will not have enough time to deal with the point about cyber-vulnerability, so I commend to the House the article in The Guardian today in which Franklin Miller, a leading expert for 20 years on the American nuclear systems and, indeed, the holder of an honorary knighthood from this country, explains why there is no question of the nuclear deterrent being connected in any way to the internet and being in any way vulnerable in that regard. Similarly, on the question of tiers, I merely say that tier 2 threats are often more dangerous than tier 1 threats, and that is why the Defence Committee has just published a report in which we challenge the utility of ranking threats in this way.
Let me now stick to reciting my few arguments. There is not much time for any detail unless someone is kind enough to intervene on me. The first of the military arguments is the most important of all: that future military threats and conflicts will be no more predictable than those that engulfed us throughout the 20th century. That is the overriding justification for preserving armed forces in peacetime as a national insurance policy.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does my right hon. Friend agree that deterrence is probably our best defence?
Dr Lewis
That point leads directly to the question of what it means to say that we are “using” Trident. Those of us who believe that the possession of a deadly weapon is the best method of stopping other people who possess similar deadly weapons from using them against us, say that Trident is in use every day of the week, and if ever the button had to be pressed, it would have totally failed in its purpose.
My second argument is that it is not the weapons themselves that we have to fear but the nature of the regimes that possess them. Whereas democracies are generally reluctant to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear dictatorships—although they did against Japan in 1945—the reverse is not true. Let us consider what might have happened if in 1982 a non-nuclear Britain had been facing an Argentina in possession of even just a few tactical nuclear bombs and the means of delivering them. Would we then have dared to use our conventional forces against its inferior conventional forces?
The third argument is that the United Kingdom has traditionally played a more important and decisive role in preserving freedom than other medium-sized democracies have been able, or willing, to do. Democratic countries without nuclear weapons have little choice but either to declare themselves neutral and hope for the best or to rely on the nuclear umbrella of their powerful allies. We are a nuclear power already, and it is also much harder to defeat us by conventional means because of the existence of the English channel.
The fourth argument is that because the United States is our closest ally, if the continent of Europe were ever occupied and the nuclear forces of the United States had not been used, an enemy might feel that they could attack us with nuclear weapons with impunity.
Alec Shelbrooke
For those who say that our nuclear deterrent is in the hands of the Americans, what does my right hon. Friend make of the fact that every Prime Minister has to write a letter held in every submarine that is never, ever seen unless in the most dire circumstances?
Dr Lewis
My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is no question but that the Trident nuclear system is entirely autonomous. Indeed, nothing—not the Americans, not any form of cyber-bug—can possibly intervene if, heaven forbid, the worst happened, the United Kingdom were attacked in part or in whole and the submarine commander had to open the dreaded letter written by the Prime Minister.
The fifth and final military argument is the most important of all. I put this to people when they try to say, “Well, you’re inflicting cuts on our conventional capability.” The argument is that there is no quantity of conventional forces that can compensate for the military disadvantage that faces a non-nuclear country in a war against a nuclear-armed enemy. The atomic bombing of Japan is a perfect example, not only because the Emperor was forced to surrender, but because what of might have happened under the reverse scenario: if Japan had developed atomic bombs in the summer of 1945 and the allies had not, a conventional allied invasion to end the war would have been out of the question.
The debate should and will go on, and I congratulate SNP Members on giving us the opportunity to take part in it today.
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
May I make it quite clear at the beginning that, during the cold war, I was a multilateralist? I have never been a member of CND, and I have no moral objections to nuclear weapons or to nuclear power. Indeed, once the atom was split in the 1940s, that could not be undone, even though Oppenheimer himself said that, in retrospect, he wished he had never discovered how to do it.
However, time has moved on and we live in a different world nowadays. There are usually two arguments why the UK should have a so-called independent nuclear deterrent. I have to say that in my opinion both of them are myths. The first myth is that the system is independent; it is not. The UK has four nuclear submarines, each can carry up to eight missiles and each missile can carry up to five nuclear warheads. The UK does not own the missiles; it leases them from America, where they are made, maintained and tested. Our four submarines have to go to the American naval base in Georgia to have the missiles fitted. It is of course said, “Oh, but we have operational independence.” That is also a myth. Does anybody seriously believe that the UK could deploy and use nuclear weapons anywhere in the world without the approval of the Americans, because I do not?
Mr Godsiff
Well, let those who believe it make their arguments. I do not believe it.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman asserts as a fact that something is a myth, but can he substantiate why he thinks what Conservative Members say, which is that the deterrent is independent in operational terms, is a myth? He is just spouting something said by Labour Members since 1983, but with no substantiation.
Mr Godsiff
The last time the United Kingdom acted with other countries was when they acted with France and Israel over the Suez canal in 1956. As I am sure Conservative Members are well aware, Harold Macmillan made it perfectly clear in his memoirs that the Americans said we had to leave Suez and end our military action, because if we did not they would bankrupt the country. If the hon. Gentleman feels that the Americans would be quite happy to let us deploy and use our nuclear weapons, he can believe that, but I do not. I want to move on.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. Should the British public sleep soundly in their beds in a few years’ time knowing that, when it comes to our nuclear weapons, Donald might hold the Trump card?
Mr Godsiff
The second myth, which has not been argued today, but is often expressed, is that if the UK did not have nuclear weapons, it would somehow lose its place on the UN Security Council. Of course, that is also nonsense, because when the Security Council was formed, only one of the five permanent members—America —had nuclear weapons.
This country, like all other developed countries, faces threats to its security from rogue states, international terrorist groups and groups within our own society who want to destroy it. In my opinion, these threats are best met by our membership of NATO, the most successful mutual defence pact in history. It never attacked anybody between the time it was set up in 1948 and the end of the cold war. The tragedy of NATO has been that, after the cold war, it became not a mutual defence pact, but the world’s policeman, which has caused enormous problems in its member countries.
The way to deal with threats from domestic terrorism is by having a fully staffed and fully financed security service, by ensuring that the police have the money to do the job they need to do and by ensuring that our own conventional forces are given the tools of the job when they are sent into military conflicts on our behalf.
Let me make this point. We have witnessed terrible terrorist atrocities in this countries—the London bombings —but did our ownership of nuclear weapons do anything to prevent them? We saw what happened in the terrible attacks in Paris last weekend, but France is a nuclear power. France has a nuclear deterrent, but did its ownership of its own nuclear deterrent deter the terrorist groups who carried out the atrocities in Paris?
I am not convinced that we should spend a huge sum of money on renewing our own nuclear deterrent, which, as I have already said, is not independent in my opinion. I very strongly believe that we should be members of NATO and that NATO members should not be averse to contributing towards the nuclear umbrella that America provides. I would have no objection to that, but I believe the idea that we should somehow have our own so-called independent nuclear deterrent just does not stack up.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Yesterday’s national security strategy and SDSR indicated the future strategy for, and shape of, our security and defence arrangements. The continued reliance on nuclear weapons of mass destruction—or the deterrent, as the UK Government prefer to call it—remains at their heart. In my speech, I will contend that these nuclear weapons do not serve Scotland or the UK as an effective deterrent. On one recent estimate, the cost will be £167 billion over the programme’s lifetime. I would argue that these colossally expensive weapons are fundamentally a status symbol for the United Kingdom, as opposed to usable military weapons. As misguided as that sounds, successive Westminster Governments have been fixated on replenishing our cold war security system for another generation.
The Trident system comprises four nuclear-powered submarines equipped with multiple missiles armed with nuclear warheads. Each missile has the sole purpose of destroying an entire city and every living person within it, indiscriminately. Those cannot be legitimate weapons of war. We do not live in a time when our security is strengthened by those weapons. The ability to obliterate a major city is not something that defends us, if indeed it ever was.
In the past few weeks, we have seen the evil that extremist hate groups can bring to our doorstep. They are made up of splintered networks throughout our towns, cities and communities, which makes them formidable to take on. I would argue that that is where we should be taking action and employing our resources. I welcome the many aspects of yesterday’s SDSR announcement by the Prime Minister that will do exactly that. The investment in 1,900 additional security services and intelligence personnel to counter the threat of espionage is welcome. That is the kind of thing that we should be investing in. The commitment to take the threat of cyber-attack as seriously as any conventional attack is correct and I welcome it.
I want to see more investment in conventional capacity. Yesterday’s announcement on maritime patrol aircraft was welcome. The aircraft that were taken away in 2010 are being replaced. The new aircraft are being put in Lossiemouth, where they should be, to defend our north coast. That widely acknowledged gap is now being filled. It was stated yesterday that our defence and security strategy is closely aligned with the plans of our NATO partners. I would argue that the UK contributes nothing to that defensive alliance other than the retention of nuclear weapons. If our strategic aim is genuinely to work, it should complement what our partners bring to NATO. Supporting NATO conventionally is the way to achieve that.
The cost of the Trident upgrade cannot be ignored, even by those who simply accept the nuclear deterrence philosophy without question. I am speaking, respectfully, to many Members in the Chamber. I object to these weapons anyway on moral grounds, and on the basis that they do not serve a military use, but their cost surely cannot be justified any longer.
Simon Hoare
I want to make sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that no Government Member would press that button with any relish or delight, but while foes and potential enemies have such weapons, it is absolutely right and proper that we have an equal defence mechanism to ensure the security of the realm. There are lots of debates that can be reduced to pounds, shillings and pence, but the defence of the realm is not one of them.
Steven Paterson
I would make two points in response. First, I do not accept the deterrence argument; that is why I am making the argument that I am making. Secondly, I ask Members who are looking at this matter with an open mind: is this system necessary at any price, when we are taking resources away from conventional weapons? That is a genuine question that has to be answered if we are to renew this system.
In the time that I have left, I want to quote—
Gavin Robinson
I was conscious that you were looking for additional time. Can I get this right? You welcome yesterday’s commitments to additional investment in national security by this country, which the SNP wants to leave. You will take the investment, the security and the support, but you want to leave this country and—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is speaking through the Chair. I have no interest in this debate. He was speaking to the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson), not the Chair.
Gavin Robinson
You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have heard that rebuke on numerous occasions and I am happy to follow all the other Members who have had to apologise to the Chair.
The hon. Gentleman knows the point that I am making. You want national security and investment from this national Parliament, but you want an à la carte—[Interruption.] Sorry, the hon. Gentleman wants an à la carte approach. I am not prepared to play fast and loose with our national security, and neither should he be.
Steven Paterson
I think that I am grateful for that contribution. It will surprise no one in this room that, as an SNP Member, I stand for independence. I believe that that is the best future for Scotland. However, I will play a constructive part in the security arrangements of the UK for as long as Scotland remains a part of it. That is a reasonable thing to do.
I was about to quote Major General Patrick Cordingley, who stated in The Guardian on 28 September that the funding for the Trident nuclear weapon system should not be ring-fenced, and that the costs should be weighed up against those for new planes, tanks and infantry. That is the argument that I would make, alongside my moral objections. We need to look at our conventional forces to see what more we can do to combat the threats that we face.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman’s narrative stacks up if we are in a realm of debate in which we have to decide whether to have one or the other. At the moment, we are able to support our conventional services and have nuclear weapons. Are we not better off having two clubs in the bag, rather than just one?
Steven Paterson
My point is that we are not doing enough to strengthen conventional weapons; we could be doing more. For example, yesterday the number of frigates was cut from 13 to eight. I would like us to strengthen our conventional forces.
The replacement of Trident fails to address the threats outlined in the SDSR and the national security strategy. Instead, we should invest in conventional forces, equipment, intelligence, counter-espionage, and combating cyber-terrorism, as well as actual terrorism on our streets and the streets of our allies. I implore the House to consider what threats Trident actually combats, and to reject its replacement.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Trident is a term often used to describe the UK’s entire nuclear weapons system, including Vanguard class submarines, Trident missiles and nuclear warheads. Each Trident D5 missile can hold up to 12 nuclear warheads, and each warhead has eight times more capacity to kill and destroy than the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima. Each submarine has 16 missile tubes, which means that it is technically capable of carrying 192 warheads. If deployed as per Hiroshima, 192 warheads, times eight, equates to killing 61 million people. With four submarines, that number grows to 250 million deaths. It would, of course, be far worse than that: a nuclear strike would lead to water supplies and arable land being polluted. Livestock would die; crops would fail. For those not initially killed by our nuclear weapons, starvation would follow. By arming themselves with Trident, the UK Government are saying that they are prepared to inflict that fate on millions of innocent civilians if that were deemed necessary.
Nobody can win a nuclear war. An exchange of nuclear weapons would lead to a level of devastation that neither side, or indeed the planet, could ever recover from. I acknowledge that we have imposed limits on the use of those weapons, but that will come as little comfort to the dead and the dying. The plan is to use a maximum of 40 warheads. Obviously, while sitting in the cloistered atmosphere of Westminster and playing war games, somebody decided that 39 warheads were not enough, and 41—well, that would be plain barbaric.
The only rational thought that could justify the renewal of Trident would be a genuine belief that its existence in some way, shape or form contributed to a more peaceful world. Since world war two, the nuclear deterrent has not stopped wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falkland Islands—I could list 20 or 30 more countries. It has not deterred terrorist attacks in London, Tunisia, Mali, Paris or New York. If nuclear weapons have proved to be completely inadequate in preventing those wars and atrocities, what are its successes? What threat does Trident address, and who does it deter?
Dr Julian Lewis
The hon. Gentleman’s argument is like saying that just because the antidote to one deadly disease is ineffective against other deadly diseases, we should not have the antidote.
Ronnie Cowan
If we had used our time, effort, money and ingenuity to fight deadly diseases instead of creating weapons of mass destruction, the world would be a better place today. We should be looking for humanitarian solutions, not for death.
Former Defence Secretary Des Browne, and Ian Kearns, the former adviser to Parliament on national security, stated:
“It has become clearer, for example, that a set of long-term threats has emerged, to which deterrence, nuclear or otherwise, is not applicable”.
Former Conservative Defence Secretary Michael Portillo said:
“Our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent and doesn’t constitute a deterrent against anybody that we regard as an enemy. It is a waste of money and it is a diversion of funds”.
I agree with the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) when he said:
“The successor Trident programme is going to consume more than double the proportion of the defence budget of its predecessor…The price required, both from the UK taxpayer and our conventional forces, is now too high to be rational or sensible.”
I am not naive, and I know there are dangers in the world, but the sort of threats that we need to address will not be placated by Trident. The UK Government have identified terrorism, cybercrime, pandemics, natural disasters, foreign instability and foreign conflicts as our primary risks over the next five years. Trident will not solve any of those issues. In the meantime, Scotland’s coast continues to be poorly guarded, and our maritime reconnaissance is poor.
I am aware that the UK Government have finally committed to new maritime patrol vehicles, but the gap in our capability will remain, at least until 2020. Westminster’s irrational commitment to Trident has come at the expense of defence jobs in Scotland. Between 2000 and 2010, cuts to military personnel in Scotland were measured at 27.9%, compared with 11.6% across the UK as a whole. The decline continued between July 2014 and July 2015, as personnel numbers in Scotland dropped by a further 9.5%. At a lifetime cost of £167 billion, it is clear that Trident makes no economic sense. It solves none of our pressing foreign policy priorities, and it is draining resources from our conventional forces. Trident is not the solution; it is very much part of the problem.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Three more Members want to catch my eye. I am very sorry to say that I will drop the speech limit down to three minutes, so that they can all be accommodated.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on a superb speech. It is a pleasure to follow it, and I agree with everything he said.
I am speaking not for the Labour party, but for myself. I am a lifelong unilateral nuclear disarmer, and I have not changed my view one jot. I hope my party’s commission comes around to my position. There are other members of the parliamentary Labour party who take the same view. We maybe in a minority, I do not know. However, tens of thousands of Labour party members outside this House and millions of fellow citizens take our view, and not the view that seems to have a majority in the House today.
I am the vice-chair of the parliamentary Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. At one time I was the national chair of the trade union CND. I marched from Aldermaston many, many years ago in a column of tens of thousands of people led by Frank Cousins, Barbara Castle, Anthony Greenwood, Tony Benn and many others in our movement who were unilateral nuclear disarmers. As has been said, nuclear weapons are an insane abomination. They are capable of vaporising vast numbers of people in one explosion and horribly injuring thousands more, as well as spreading toxic radiation across the world. Any sane person would say they had to go. I am not convinced that our fellow Europeans in Germany, Italy and Spain would vote for us to keep our nuclear weapons. I do not know, but I suspect not. One day, we will win the unilateralist argument in Britain and get rid of them.
Hon. Members have raised the issue of replacing jobs. Replacing jobs is quite easy. The issue is not the existence of jobs, but what those jobs make. If we had people making thumbscrews, we would say those jobs were not right, and we would replace the thumbscrews with something more benign—and nuclear weapons are much more horrific than thumbscrews. Nevertheless, we have to think about what people are doing in their jobs. We could replace all nuclear weapons jobs with jobs relating to conventional weaponry. Our forces are under-resourced. We heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) that military experts and people in the forces say we need to spend money, not on nuclear weapons, but on conventional forces. The construction of new ships would provide jobs in Barrow-in-Furness. Even just decommissioning existing Trident nuclear submarines—I want to go further than not renewing them and decommission them now—would provide a lot of work for some years to come. There are many arguments that I would like raise if I had more time, but that is it for now.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I thank my Scottish National party colleagues for securing this important debate. Hon. Members have been challenging one another to be clear on nuclear weapons, so before I come to the substance of what I want to say in the very brief time I have, I want to put my party’s position on the record. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that my party believes that nuclear weapons, the possession of them and the willingness to use them, are illegal, immoral and a grotesque diversion of resources from the real threats we face.
Let me start by focusing on the misguided claim that nuclear weapons make us safer. I would argue that they do not and I am not alone in that. Last year, under the umbrella of the European Leadership Network, senior military, political and diplomatic figures, including former Conservative Foreign Secretary and former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Defence Secretary Des Browne and former Foreign Secretary Lord Owen, came together with the explicit aim of
“shining a light on the risks posed by nuclear weapons.”
Reporting in advance of the third international conference on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons, they warned:
“We believe the risks posed by nuclear weapons and the international dynamics that could lead to nuclear weapons being used are underestimated or insufficiently understood by world leaders.”
I could not agree more, and that would seem true of our own Prime Minister here today. His main argument for replacing Trident, as he said in response to questions on the SDSR yesterday, is that they are the “ultimate insurance” in an “uncertain world”. What he fails to acknowledge, however, is that it is precisely our possession of nuclear weapons in contravention of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons that is exacerbating that uncertainty. It is leading to the very scenario that he is so keen to avoid.
The Secretary of State has said that we live in an uncertain world. Yes, we do, but the logic of his argument must be that every other country in the world should also seek to protect its populations by acquiring nuclear weapons. Is he relaxed about a world in which every single country is trying to acquire nuclear weapons? Does he really think that that level of proliferation will make us safer? I don’t think so. By keeping and upgrading our nuclear weapons, we send a signal to the rest of the world that security is dependent on the acquisition of nuclear weapons. In the words of Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General:
“The more that those states that already have”
nuclear weapons
“increase their arsenals, or insist that such weapons are essential to their national security, the more other states feel that they too must have them for their security.”
The logical conclusion of the Government’s argument is a world full of nuclear weapons, which will only make us less safe.
Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the Government have a duty to pursue negotiations, in good faith, on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament at an early date. Replacing the Trident system means committing the UK to maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons for decades to come, in complete contravention of the NPT. Disarmament is the best way to reduce dangers and improve global security, strengthen the NPT regime, deter proliferation and de-escalate international tensions. Nuclear weapons are a diversion from the real threats we face, and we should get rid of them now.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I rise to sum up for my party after a debate that, by coincidence, falls in the week when we heard the Government outline their plans for defence spending in the years ahead and when we will hear the Chancellor present his first autumn statement under a majority Government. I was struck yesterday when the Prime Minister pronounced from the Dispatch Box that Trident would not squeeze out other defence expenditure. From what we have heard today, he has clearly failed to convince some hon. Members.
I thank everyone who has taken part in this extremely thoughtful and thorough debate. It was interesting to listen to all the contributions, whether or not I agreed with what was said. I echo the thoughts of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who was clear about the importance of our having these discussions. Like my hon. Friends, I was elected on a clear platform of ensuring a stronger voice for Scotland, standing up against austerity and always opposing the renewal of weapons of mass destruction.
I am not surprised to hear enthusiasm from Government Members, such as the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for keeping nuclear weapons. It was disappointing but at least clear. I am, however, disappointed to have seen such empty Labour Benches during the debate. As noted by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), that can only be because they are not clear about their position. Is it the Scottish Labour position of not renewing Trident? Is it the position of Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale, who supports weapons of mass destruction? Is it the position of Scottish Labour members who do not? Is it the position of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who opposes Trident, or of his colleagues who support renewal, such as—I think—the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins)? Or is it something else?
Simon Hoare
There might be another reason for the absence of Labour Members. According to the newspapers this morning, they have all been told to go and campaign in Oldham West. For them, the fear of losing a by-election is far more important than the defence of the realm.
Kirsten Oswald
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I have nothing to add.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield’s characterisation of the debate as a stunt was particularly unedifying and unhelpful. Our position on Trident could not be clearer or more consistent, and it was both reasonable and appropriate that we sought a debate on it. The only stunts are the mental acrobatics of anyone trying to get their head around the ever-changing Labour position. The position of all hon. Members on Trident is important —this is a vital discussion—so I would have sincerely welcomed their full participation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who opened the debate, represents the constituency that houses our nuclear weapons. All hon. Members should read his logical, detailed and powerful speech. He pointed out the astonishing and rocketing costs of Trident. Anyone watching the television yesterday would have felt that the cost was going up with each news bulletin. This must surely concern us all. I must also commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) for his passionate and well-made points about nuclear safety.
Clearly, some Members, including Conservative Members, are very sincere in their belief in the merits of weapons of mass destruction. Although I disagree with the Secretary of State for Defence, I appreciated the measured and considered way in which he made his contribution. I support his positive comments about how hard our service personnel work. However, I cannot agree with his assertion that nuclear weapons are a means of defending ourselves against today’s threats.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) usefully pointed out the futility of nuclear weapons against threats such as those we currently face from Daesh. Although I did not agree with the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), I was pleased to hear her say—I think—that she would not push the button, and I appreciated her thoughtful tone and manner.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Let me put it on the record that I did not say I would not push the button.
Kirsten Oswald
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, but I am no clearer about her position on that issue. The measured approach in her earlier contribution contrasted with that of her colleague the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), who compared Trident to a burglar alarm. I disagreed, too, with the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). Again, though, I thought their contributions were sincere and interesting, and I thank them for the tone they brought to the debate.
I was disappointed by the Labour Member who suggested that opposition to Trident was a narrow nationalist issue. I must disagree, as this issue concerns every one of us. Frankly, I was appalled at the comments and the tone of the name-calling contribution from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). His contribution added absolutely nothing constructive to today. On the other hand, I thank the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who made a useful and constructive speech, making his principled objections to Trident clearly understood. I commend, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for her compelling and insightful speech, and her thoughts on the legality of the use of Trident. I was also pleased to hear the knowledgeable and insightful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan).
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) correctly pointed out that it is important that this debate is taking place now, as we rapidly approach main gate. I cannot support his call for a deterrent in another form, but it was positive to hear another Scottish representative participating in today’s debate, and it is unfortunate that neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) were in their places for today’s debate.
I was struck by the powerful remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who focused on the dangers inherent in nuclear weapons, and by those of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff), who rightly questioned the independence of the nuclear weapons we hold.
I have recently met both the Hibakusha—Japanese atom bomb survivors—and the mayor of Hiroshima. The message that these people who were so directly affected by these terrible nuclear weapons bring was clear. I dearly wish that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) had been able to join me to hear directly from them what the impact of nuclear weapons on real people really is.
The point made in the powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan)—that no one can win a nuclear war—was well made, and I can only applaud those sentiments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) pointed out that if Trident ever gets through the main gate, it will become a steady drain on the defence budget. It will compete for resources with conventional equipment, which will get chopped and changed to suit the Government of the day’s political requirements rather than the needs of the armed forces. The irony of our not flinching at the astounding hike in an already indefensible cost was not lost on my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson). I have to wonder why this same logic was not applied to Nimrod, which the Government broke up when the price went up, leaving our huge Scottish coastline with absolutely no maritime patrol aircraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute said, that is a strange, worrying and very skewed logic.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green pointed out that the deterrent simply does not deal with our current threats and that it does not stack up. In the context of a capped defence budget, this does not make sense, as we saw from the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). As the implications of the SDSR become clearer, there is no doubt that we will see areas in which the Government expect our armed forces to do less.
I remind the Secretary of State for Defence again that people in Scotland are clear: there is determined national opposition to the renewal of Trident. I say that with 57 of 59 MPs in Scotland being SNP Members, and with the Churches, much of civic Scotland and the Scottish TUC all in opposition to renewal.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), this Conservative Government have no mandate to impose their immoral views on the people of Scotland. They show a wilful disregard of the people of Scotland and of the message that was sent here from the ballot box.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Mr Philip Dunne)
I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). I believe that she was making her debut in winding up a debate on behalf of her party, and I congratulate her on that. As she said, this has been a well-informed and at times passionate debate, and rightly so, because the strategic deterrent forms a key part of the Government’s No. 1 priority: the defence of the realm.
The Government are committed to maintaining a minimum credible and assured deterrent, as was clearly stated in the manifesto on which they were elected to govern the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady argued that we should respect the wishes of the Scottish people, and we should indeed take them into account, but that is the same argument as was advanced by the then leader of the Greater London Council when he declared London to be a nuclear-free zone. No nuclear weapon would have been allowed in this country had his views been entirely respected. That is not an argument that we can respect, because we have responsibility for the government of the United Kingdom as a whole.
We are committed to building four new nuclear-armed submarines to replace the current four Vanguard class submarines, but not to replacing the Trident missile, which is the notional subject of the debate. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), the subject of the debate is not, strictly speaking, what is at stake today, because what we are actually discussing is whether or not to replace the submarine class, rather than the missile system.
Why do we stand by our commitment? First, as the Secretary of State said, this is about being realistic. We do not live in an ideal world, much as we might wish to. Our deterrent is there to deter the most extreme threats to our national security and way of life. Those threats have not gone away, however much people might wish it were otherwise. The national security review which was published yesterday shows that, if anything, they are growing and becoming more complex and more diverse by the day.
Under the coalition Government, we as a nation took steps to reduce nuclear arsenals, and we have reduced the number of deployed warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40. Other nations with nuclear weapons have not responded to that unilateral action. They need to follow our example, and nations without nuclear weapons should end all notions of obtaining them. Those who wish to gamble with the nation’s security do so with no ability to predict what the world might be like in decades to come.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
Mr Dunne
I am afraid that I have very little time.
Secondly, our deterrent works for us every day, for 365 days and nights each year, thanks to the brave service of so many of our valiant personnel serving on the Vanguard class submarines—and, indeed, the husband of the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), whom she mentioned earlier. I believe that he has now retired from the Royal Navy, but I respect the service that he gave.
The fact that we have a continuous at-sea deterrent sows the seeds of doubt in the minds of our potential adversaries. As was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) in a powerful speech, continuous at-sea deterrence works because it provides the ability to strike back. It also provides another decision-making centre in the NATO alliance, and complicates and confuses an enemy’s calculations.
Finally, there is no alternative. Notwithstanding the recollection of my friend and former colleague the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the 2013 Trident Alternatives Review made it very clear that if we were to have a cost-effective way of delivering the minimum nuclear deterrent, Successor was the only viable solution. Moreover, the ramifications of removing our deterrent would be immense, putting at risk not just our national security and our position in NATO—the cornerstone of our defence—but our economy, our essential skills base, and thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom.
John Woodcock
I asked the Minister earlier if he would reassure the workforce that the change in the industry would not affect their jobs throughout the supply chain. Will he do that now?
Mr Dunne
I am about to respond to some of the comments that have been made today. Before I answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I want to deal with the fantasy figures presented by the SNP’s defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), who had conjured up from nowhere the idea that if the nuclear deterrent ceased to exist, Scotland would benefit by some £15 billion as a result of not spending money on it. The cost of replacing the Vanguard class with the Successor class is, as identified clearly in yesterday’s document, £31 billion spread over decades—over some 30 years—so the idea of a much larger figure is not correct.
Mr Dunne
No, I am afraid I will not give way.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s apparent admission that in the event that the deterrent was to be decommissioned, Scotland would take its share of the nuclear decommissioning risk and location of nuclear material. That is very welcome indeed and is in stark contrast to the responses we have had from the Scottish Government to the disposal project currently in consultation.
The hon. Gentleman also indicated no willingness to acknowledge there is any potential threat from nuclear-empowered nations. He was challenged and signally failed to provide an answer as to what the potential threat might be from Russia, despite the fact that every time there is an incursion into either air or sea space approximate to our national territorial waters SNP Members are the first to jump up and ask what we are doing about it. It seems that they have, as so often, double standards. Finally, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there has been no increase in nuclear weaponry in this country—far from it; nuclear weapons numbers have declined.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield gave a thoughtful speech from a somewhat confused party position. On the governance of implementing a delivery organisation to make sure we deliver the Successor programme on time and to budget over the years to come, I can confirm that this will remain subject to oversight by the MOD. We are in the process of working out how we best learn the lessons of delivering major procurement projects like Aircraft Carrier Alliance to get the industry properly aligned, and the Ministry and the delivery organisations currently within DE&S properly aligned, to work in partnership to deliver this vital programme.
Toby Perkins
The Minister said there will be MOD oversight. Does that mean the MOD will be leading this, or will it be led from the Treasury?
Mr Dunne
As the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made clear, this will be reporting through the MOD structures to the Secretary of State, and of course the Treasury will take its interest in the delivery of major programmes as it does in all our category A programmes, of which this will obviously be the largest.
We have had contributions from a number of Members across the House, and they have been well-recognised already. I do not have time to thank Members for contributing, but I would just say by way of conclusion that it was welcome to see consensus between most of the contributions of the Official Opposition and the contributions from the Government Benches. I recognise that many who stood up have done so with courage in speaking of their belief in the vital importance of our strategic deterrence, some despite the appalling provocations and bigoted comments from the former Mayor of London, who has allegedly been appointed by the Leader of the Opposition, without the courtesy of informing the shadow Defence Secretary, to, as we heard today, co-convene a Labour review of the strategic deterrent.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield did his best, but even he was unable to make clear what this review is for, who is in charge and what difference it will make. Heaven knows what will emerge from the review—we might get a clue from the vote imminently—but I was astonished to learn from the Opposition spokesman that he does not regard it as appropriate to vote on this motion in Parliament today. I say to those Labour Members who share my concern to maintain continuous at-sea deterrence, “Let your conscience guide you into the right Division Lobby this afternoon.” I urge Members of both sides of the House to do the right thing for the whole of the UK, not just for today but for tomorrow, and restore the consensus that has kept us safe for decades.
Question put.
HMRC Office Closures
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 154 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House condemns the proposed closure of HMRC offices in Scotland and throughout the UK; believes that this will result in a reduced service to the public; is concerned about the potential loss of tax yield; is further concerned at the loss of jobs and expertise in local communities; further believes that this will undermine efforts to reduce the tax gap which currently stands at £34 billion; also believes that this proposal will undermine the ability of SMEs to access information and advice and that the proposed closure programme is flawed and counterproductive; and calls on the Government to halt its programme of HMRC office closures.
The UK Government’s recent announcement of the planned closure of 137 local Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices across the UK is part of their continued drive to rain down a regime of austerity cuts on our family of nations.
HMRC employs 8,330 people across Scotland, which represents 13% of all UK HMRC staff. Although we do not have the full information from the Government on how many jobs will be lost, the BBC has reported—
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it was a democratic outrage that the Government produced a statement on this matter during a parliamentary recess, and that a Government statement was not made at the Dispatch Box of this House?
Hannah Bardell
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is yet more evidence of this Government’s lack of respect for Scotland and for Scottish workers.
Following the announcement, the BBC reported that more than 2,000 jobs could be lost in Scotland. As yet, we have no detail. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will list the offices that are set to close across Scotland to highlight the scale and impact of the decision: one office to close in Aberdeen by 2021; one office in Bathgate and Livingston, my own constituency, by 2020; one office in Cumbernauld by 2020; two offices in Dundee; three offices in East Kilbride; three offices to close and consolidate into one large office in Edinburgh; and two large offices to close and consolidate into one large office in Glasgow.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I am pleased to say that I support the motion. The motion also refers to HMRC offices throughout the UK. Does she have statistics for the whole of the UK as well as for Scotland?
Hannah Bardell
I do not have them to hand, but I would be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman’s specific views and discuss them with him.
Hannah Bardell
I am going to make some progress.
An office is also going to shut in Inverness, and offices in Irvine and Glenrothes are also in the process of closing. Those closures are distressing news for the employees, their families and the communities affected, including in my constituency of Livingston. We must remember that behind every closed office and every job lost are individual folk, some of whom I and my colleagues have met in recent weeks following the announced closures. Many of them have proudly worked for HMRC for 10, 20 or more than 30 years. Many have spent their whole careers in their local HMRC offices and are fiercely proud of the work they do.
Hannah Bardell
I am going to make some progress. Three of the Scottish centres announced for closure—those in East Kilbride, Cumbernauld and my constituency of Livingston—employ staff who issue specific guidance to the public on access to and eligibility for tax credits. With the prospect on the horizon of the Chancellor returning with his tax credit cuts, it is unthinkable that that support will be withdrawn from our communities.
The budgets of Government Departments and public bodies will suffer as a result of the austerity measures. They will be reduced by the Chancellor, who continues to cut despite the advice of many academics. Indeed, only yesterday, a report by City University said:
“George Osborne could be forced to borrow billions of pounds more than forecast by 2020 if he sticks with spending cuts that will hit economic growth”.
Two academics from City University projected that by 2020 the Government will be forced to report a £40 billion deficit instead of the planned surplus, undermining the Chancellor’s fiscal charter, which dictates that the Government borrow only in times of distress.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
Despite the context set out by the hon. Lady and the very difficult economic circumstances, will she welcome the jobs that the consolidation and new office plan will create in Cardiff, the capital of Wales?
Hannah Bardell
New jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will, of course, be good news for his constituents, but I want to know what the Chancellor has to say to people in Scotland and other parts of the UK who are going to suffer and lose their local tax offices.
Hannah Bardell
Let me make some progress. The City University report is proof that this Chancellor’s attempt to run an absolute surplus is not working and is not credible.
SNP Members were elected on a manifesto that offered an alternative, fiscally credible plan for a modest 0.5% increase in public spending, which would have injected £140 billion into the economy. The proposed closure of HMRC offices will have a disproportionate effect on Scotland, because the vast majority of the UK Government’s ring-fenced Departments lie outside Scotland.
Hannah Bardell
If the hon. Gentleman gives me some time, I would like to make some progress.
The most recent proposed closure of local HMRC offices will result in Scotland being left with no HMRC offices beyond the central belt of Scotland. The plans fail to understand or take into account the diversity and needs of the Scottish economy. There are a wide range of industries beyond the central belt of Scotland, including farming, fishing, whisky, tourism and, indeed, oil and gas. Many of those industries rely on the ability to work with their local tax offices, given the complexities of their businesses.
Callum McCaig
I do not know why people are upset—I have not spoken yet. As a former resident of the great city of Aberdeen and a former worker in the oil industry, my hon. Friend will understand the complexity of an industry that relies heavily on contractors and the need for specialist tax advice. Will she explain to hon. Members the distance between Aberdeen and Edinburgh? They are not just down the road from each other, but those making this decision seem to think that that is the case.
Hannah Bardell
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am aware of the complexities of the oil and gas industry, but I am afraid that the Government and Conservative Members do not seem to appreciate them.
The world of work is changing, and many people across the UK are choosing to start and develop their own small businesses. In particular, women are choosing to take charge of their own destiny and start their own businesses, many of them from home. A network of good tax support is essential to support those businesses, run by men and women, if they are to thrive.
I was recently visited by a constituent who has a farming business. He impressed on me the importance of access to local HMRC services and face-to-face support. Industries such as farming often operate a year in arrears to very tight margins, and I and my colleagues have grave concerns about the impact on them and a wide range of other sectors, not least small and medium-sized enterprises.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I called my local tax offices today to see whether I could pop in to speak to them. For the past year they have been unwilling to allow anyone to see them face to face. People can contact them only by phone, so it makes no difference if they are based in the region or locally.
Hannah Bardell
I have just got to my feet again, so let me continue. John Allan, the national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses said:
“Our members have repeatedly told us about difficulties getting practical help from HMRC when complying with their tax requirements. The current online offering is limited, often hampered by poor broadband connectivity, and the phone help line is hard to navigate, with long waiting times.
Over the long-term, this modernisation programme must bring substantial benefits and efficiency savings. In the short-term however, members will be concerned that the closure of these tax offices will simply compound existing problems.
The Government need to reassure businesses that disruption is kept to a minimum. This should be used by HMRC as an opportunity to deliver services that are easy to access, provide clear and consistent help tailored for smaller businesses and provide the certainty they need for their tax affairs.”
If the Chancellor will not listen to the SNP, perhaps he will listen to the Federation of Small Businesses.
These closures have been happening for some time. In March 2013, the UK Government announced that they were to close all of their 281 inquiry centres by June 2015, and it was reported that closures would result in the loss of 1,300 jobs. A consultation on plans to streamline HMRC inquiry and support services through the use of telephone consultations occurred in 2012, and HMRC piloted the new service in the north-east of England from June to December 2013. In October 2014, HMRC announced plans to close 14 offices across the UK by December 2015. It was reported that that would affect 453 civil servants, and a further 690 administrative employees had been offered voluntary redundancy.
The Public Accounts Committee said in the first half of 2015, following the closures, that only 50% of calls from the public were answered by HMRC, down from 73% in the last financial year. Tam Dolan, the PCS branch chairman in Dundee, said:
“This decision is baffling. HMRC have trained staff doing an excellent job, receiving more calls than they can handle. For PCS members in Dundee, making these staff redundant while recruiting elsewhere sends a message that Dundee doesn’t feature in HMRC’s long-term plans.”
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is being typically generous with her time. In the sunny uplands of Scottish independence, what detailed analysis would her party, as a Government, have undertaken as to the quantum of HMRC staff and offices it would have in a newly independent Scotland?
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Gentleman is getting a little ahead of himself; I will come to that.
Ironically, during the referendum many argued that independence for Scotland would result in job losses in public services. It was lauded as the Union dividend, and we in Scotland were told by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, who sadly is no longer in his place:
“That dividend is our share of a more prosperous future. It is the money that will pay for better public services and a fairer society.”
In July and August 2014, the Scottish Labour party tweeted that 3,200 jobs at HMRC were
“just one of the reasons that being part of the UK is best for Scottish jobs…and 1,400 jobs at HMRC in Cumbernauld are dependent on us staying in the UK.”
That was clearly not the case. I hope that those on the Labour Benches, who will also no doubt have constituencies affected by these closures, will reflect on those comments and think carefully about who can be trusted when it comes to jobs in Scotland.
The tax gap in 2013-14 was estimated to be £34 billion, which amounts to 6.4% of total theoretical tax liabilities. Small and medium-sized enterprises account for the largest portion of the overall tax gap—some £16.5 billion ––followed by large businesses with some £9.5 billion. We in the SNP take the view that the vast majority of SMEs actively want to contribute to society by paying tax and that a high proportion of the SME tax gap will have been lost through errors and miscommunications.
Hannah Bardell
I shall continue. The UK Government’s plan to slash 137 local HMRC offices across the UK will inevitably have a knock-on impact on the ability of SMEs to access information and advice on tax.
I would like to give my personal thanks to Gary Stein and his PCS colleagues who met me, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and MSP Angela Constance immediately after the closure announcement. I know that other PCS colleagues held similar meetings across Scotland and the UK. Gary and his PCS colleagues are working hard to engage staff and management in offices in West Lothian and have made clear their concerns about morale and the range of issues that I have highlighted. It cannot remain unsaid how valuable our local unions are in this process, and I am sure that it is not without sinister intention that the Government have marched ahead with their undemocratic Trade Union Bill, which would mean that the important work that our unions do in such situations would be made ever more difficult. Never has it been more vital that we have good engagement with the workforces who deliver essential public services.
Lady Hermon
I know that the hon. Lady is storing up the best until last, but in the meantime I am grateful to her for allowing me to intervene. We have a serious issue in Northern Ireland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land frontier with another EU member state, which gives rise, very unfortunately for HM Treasury, to fuel smuggling and the loss of a huge amount of revenue along the border with the Republic of Ireland. The announcement of the closure of HMRC offices in Northern Ireland has serious consequences, so will the hon. Lady reflect on that before she calls on someone else to intervene?
Hannah Bardell
I share the hon. Lady’s concerns, which will be shared across Scotland and other parts of the UK. My local PCS representatives spoke about what they felt was a perfect storm brewing. The greater the pressure we put on our public services and the more we squeeze them, the more likely it is that there will be major breakdowns in the system.
I am going to finish up. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I am sure that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) can save his intervention for speeches by other colleagues. I urge all parties across the Chamber to support our motion and ask this Tory Government in the strongest terms to think again on these nonsensical and ill-conceived HMRC closures.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I am delighted to be able to respond to this debate, because protecting the country’s tax revenues is a key part of the Government’s long-term economic plan, and because we have already made great steps in modernising the way in which tax is collected.
The changes announced on 12 November are an important part of HMRC’s operational modernisation programme, designed to create a modern, efficient organisation that continues to protect this country’s tax revenues. Modernising and improving the efficiency of HMRC, enabling it better to tackle evasion, drive down avoidance and improve compliance, has been a key Government objective since 2010.
We have made substantial investments to achieve that aim, not least the provision of an added £800 million in the summer Budget, which will help HMRC to recover an additional £7.2 billion. As a result, we have succeeded in driving down the tax gap as a percentage of total liabilities from 7.3% in 2009-10 to 6.4% in 2013-14. This fall represents an additional £14.5 billion in cumulative tax collected. Over the last Parliament, HMRC secured about £100 billion in additional compliance yield, including a record level of £26.6 billion in 2014-15. We have also made important cost reductions to the operational side of HMRC, and I make no apology for that. HMRC cannot be immune from the requirement that its resources are spent wisely.
David Simpson
I thank the Minister for giving way. It was friendly fire for the SNP, but it did not accept it.
The Minister will acknowledge the disappointment in Northern Ireland about the fact that 10 offices are closing. We do not have the full numbers for those who will lose their job or when the redundancies will happen. Further to the comment by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), we are vulnerable at the best of times, but with the land border this will make it even worse.
Mr Gauke
First, this is about offices, not about staff. On the numbers of people likely to be employed—for example, in Northern Ireland—it should not be taken that because offices are closing, the total number of staff employed by HMRC in Northern Ireland as a whole will be reduced. Of course, HMRC is aware of the specific issues with smuggling and is determined to address them. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman about numbers of staff. It should not be taken from the announcement of office closures that there will necessarily be a reduction in staff in Northern Ireland at all.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does the Minister not realise that when offices are closed, that has an effect on staff? With the best will in the world, there will be redundancies. Can he give us the numbers of staff affected? More importantly, I have schoolteachers in my constituency who want to sort out their pension problems. They use the HMRC hotline but they cannot get through—nobody responds to them. What is the Minister going to do about that?
Mr Gauke
The point I am making is that of course the closure of offices has an impact on some of the staff working in those offices. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s first question, by 2027, when the process will have been completed, approximately 4,000 of the existing 58,000 people employed by HMRC will not be within reasonable daily travel distance to an HMRC office. I want to be completely straightforward with the House of Commons. That is the scale by 2027.
On customer service, I agree that HMRC’s standards need to be high, and there have been times in recent months when they have not been at an acceptable level. I am pleased that performance is significantly better than it was in April, May and June this year. It is still not as high as we would like it to be, but it is above the average standard over the past six or seven years. We still have further to go.
In order to ensure a high level of customer service and to make sure that we bring the yield in, it is important that HMRC’s resources are deployed efficiently and effectively, and it is important that we ensure that services can be delivered in the most efficient way possible.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
On staff numbers, my hon. Friend will be aware that the office in Chelmsford will be closing and will be based in Stratford in east London—20 or 25 minutes’ train journey from Chelmsford. Can people who work in Chelmsford take some reassurance from what my hon. Friend has said that the redeployment of staff from Chelmsford to Stratford is a viable proposition?
Mr Gauke
Yes, I think I can provide that reassurance to my right hon. Friend. An organisation that can make better use of technology and improve the way it works will find that there are some activities that it currently performs for which it requires large numbers of staff, but that it will not necessarily need those staff members in future. There are, however, a number of things that HMRC does that will mean that it requires those staff members. HMRC will become a more highly skilled organisation. It will need highly talented people to be able to ensure that we get the money in. My right hon. Friend provides a good example. There may be people currently working in, for example, Chelmsford who have skills that HMRC needs. They will be able to work in Stratford. I can point to other examples of similar circumstances throughout the United Kingdom.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I do not disagree with the overall picture that my hon. Friend paints, but the decision to base the regional hub for Yorkshire in Leeds rather than in Bradford is crass. If it can be shown that locating the regional hub in the Bradford district will be cheaper for the taxpayer and offer better value for money, and that the calibre of the staff could be accommodated in and attracted to that base, will my hon. Friend give a commitment to revisit this decision and look at what the Bradford district can offer?
Mr Gauke
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend supports the view that we should move to a smaller number of regional centres. I am conscious that there are different views on locating the hub in Leeds and Bradford. HMRC’s analysis is based on the fact that it has large numbers of staff who live and work in, for example, York, Harrogate or Sheffield. Returning to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns), if those people are to be redeployed, it is substantially easier for them to go to Leeds, because there is a direct train service to Leeds, than it would be for them to go to Bradford, for which they would have to travel into Leeds and change, and their commute could then be beyond what would constitute reasonable daily travel. In fact, I should have said Hull rather than Harrogate, but there are similar points as regards staff living in Harrogate, and in Doncaster, in that it is easier to get to Leeds than to Bradford. As always, I am more than happy to listen to the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), and by others. Indeed, I am to have a meeting with Bradford MPs over the course of the next week or two to hear the arguments that they wish to put.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On a very specific point, the Minister will be aware that there is a special investigations unit in Northern Ireland dealing with serious and organised crime gangs and extra-special tax affairs of certain individuals. That unit, which was based at Moira house, is faced with closure. Where will it now be based to deal with these specific issues for Northern Ireland?
Mr Gauke
There are a handful of specialist centres around the United Kingdom as a whole, but the intention with Northern Ireland is to work out of one main office in Belfast.
I welcome the fact that HMRC’s expenditure on its estates fell from £371 million in 2010-11 to £255 million in 2014-15, and that these plans will generate further savings of £100 million a year by 2025.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Gauke
Let me just make this point and then I will take plenty of interventions.
That will allow HMRC better to concentrate on its core task of revenue collection. Yes, there are savings for HMRC in reducing its estate costs, but it has made it very clear to me that regardless of what the spending review settlement will be tomorrow, it would move in this direction because it believes that the best way in which it can deliver services and collect tax is through regional centres. That is the important point.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the staff of HMRC, who do a very tough and challenging job in collecting the taxes that pay for our vital public services. The Minister has mentioned his recent concerns about customer service, and I have had constituency correspondence from HMRC confirming that that has not been adequate to date. Can he explain, in specific terms, how cutting office numbers, thereby removing the local knowledge and memory of staff, increases the quality of customer service that people can expect?
Mr Gauke
It might be helpful to the House if I set out a little history in terms of how HMRC has operated. When it was formed in 2005, it had 572 offices spread all over the country. That is an inefficient way of doing business in the 21st century. Reorganising that network of offices was a policy priority even then, and that is why, following several reorganisations, the number was reduced to 393 in 2010.
It now stands at 170 offices, ranging in size from 5,700 people to fewer than 10. That is a start, but it is still not enough in terms of finding efficiencies.
The changes announced last week represent the next stage of HMRC’s estate transformation programme. Over the next 10 years, the department will bring its employees together in 13 large modern offices, equipped with the digital infrastructure and training facilities they need to work effectively. The new high-quality regional centres will serve each and every region and nation in the United Kingdom, creating high-quality skilled jobs and promotion opportunities in Birmingham, Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Croydon, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Stratford.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Gauke
Let me just make this point and I will then give way.
There are significant advantages to such a system. The new offices will have the capacity to host multiple lines of businesses and have senior jobs on site. They will offer employees the opportunity to build their careers and skills in one office, and encourage upskilling. They will be in locations with strong transport links and close to pipelines of talent. They represent the way in which business is done in the 21st century.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The Minister has been very generous in and good about giving way. He mentioned that 4,000 employees may be affected by 2027. Is he saying that he can redeploy all those employees?
Mr Gauke
To return to that point, I gave the statistic that 4,000 of the current 58,000 people employed by HMRC will be outside a reasonable daily travel distance by 2027, as HMRC has acknowledged. I am afraid that there will have to be redundancies for those people, assuming that they are still working for HMRC, over the course of that period. I would make the point that the vast majority of HMRC staff—I recognise that this is difficult for those who are not in such a position—will clearly be able to work in the regional centres I have mentioned.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the current level of customer service in HMRC is unacceptable? The speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) would have made sense were it not for the fact that, currently, about 40% of calls are never answered. It is not even that they are answered after 40 minutes; they are never answered. Does he agree that regional centres enabling us to flex the number of staff must form a coherent approach to getting calls answered, which cannot be done with 190 centres?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the numbers are not quite as bad as that at the moment—80% of calls are getting through—but we need to ensure that quality is higher. The point is that it is easier to provide flexibility when there are fewer centres.
For example, people can be moved from processing jobs. As I said earlier, some processing jobs will not be necessary in future, but a lot of the compliance jobs will be necessary. If we want people to continue to work for HMRC by upskilling them—moving them out of processing jobs by getting them involved in more highly skilled compliance work—that will be easier to deliver if they are already working in the same building, with the same people and with training facilities. That is why it is absolutely the right measure to ensure that there are opportunities for existing staff.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I believe that 3,000 extra staff were laid on to help to handle phone calls at weekends, and I welcome that. May I put in a bid for the Minister to reassure us that we will still have human beings at the end of the telephone in this great new system, which I fully support?
Mr Gauke
Yes, there will be human beings. It is true that, following the problems earlier this year, HMRC brought in an additional 3,000 people to work on the telephones. Those people have been trained up and are now deployed. That explains why there has been a significant improvement in performance over the past few weeks, although there is still more work to do.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I commend the Government on making it a priority to clamp down on tax evasion. That contributed to the collection of an extra £11.9 billion in the last tax year. The Anchorage House site in Chatham in my constituency has long played a key role in closing the tax gap. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss the future of the large number of dedicated and skilled workers?
Mr Gauke
I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend. I have had a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) to discuss this matter. Again, I am happy to meet him and I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) would also like a meeting. I am happy to meet them. I think that HMRC is right to move in this direction, although I appreciate that it creates certain issues. Some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) will have the option to work in the Maidstone office, which will stay open for four years longer than the Chatham office. I am sure that a number of them will take that up.
Chris Stephens
The Minister has been most generous. Many MPs and tax experts support the view that a visible and local HMRC presence is essential to maintaining confidence in the tax system. Does he not believe that the measures that have been announced by HMRC will open the way for more tax avoidance?
Mr Gauke
No, I do not. As I have made clear, the number of HMRC officers has been falling since its creation in 2005, including over the past five years, and we have seen the closure of inquiry centres, as has been touched on, but HMRC’s success in dealing with tax avoidance and evasion over that period has been marked and has improved. The truth is that HMRC deals with tax avoidance and evasion principally through sophisticated data analysis and by bringing together highly skilled people. The more that we can do of that, the bigger the difference we will make.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
If HMRC requires visibility, is any consideration being given to mobile offices in vans, like mobile libraries? For example, Northern Ireland has one big office in Belfast, but it could send vans down to Armagh, Enniskillen or Londonderry.
Mr Gauke
HMRC’s “needs enhanced support” service was brought in as a partial replacement of the inquiry centres. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about HMRC’s presence. However, it has a strong record in dealing with avoidance and evasion, there has been a substantial increase in prosecutions and it is hard to open a newspaper without reading reports of the wealthy facing significant tax bills because HMRC is successfully closing down tax avoidance schemes. That shows that HMRC is reducing this behaviour.
Mr Mak
I am heartened by the Minister’s confirmation that reducing the tax gap and protecting tax revenues remains a key priority. Will he confirm that the progress in that area has been strong since the Government took office, resulting in more than £57 billion extra tax revenue being collected compared with 2005-06?
Mr Speaker
Of whom—I know that the Minister will find this helpful—there are no fewer than 19. I point out very gently, because the Minister has been generous in taking interventions, that his speech, probably as a result of that, is significantly longer than that of the person who led the debate. I am sure he would not want that to be the case.
Mr Gauke
I certainly would not, Mr Speaker.
HMRC has done this the right way and told staff first. It has kept people fully abreast of its proposals for a number of months, and it has held events up and down the country to ensure that it works with staff. As I said earlier, this is a locations announcement, not a workforce announcement, and the Department’s policy is to keep redundancies to an absolute minimum.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Mr Gauke
I will not. I have listened to Mr Speaker and I take his words very seriously. I will make progress.
I say to the hon. Member for Livingston that the changes that HMRC is talking about, such as trying to find efficiencies through centralisation, are not unique to HMRC or the UK Government. The Scottish Government have also brought forward proposals to rationalise their estates. They brought forward proposals to close up to seven of Police Scotland’s 10 control rooms, and we hear of plans to close regional fire stations, following the consolidation of local fire authorities into one national body. There have been cuts to the number of court buildings across Scotland, and the number of incorporated colleges was cut by almost half. I am sure that the Scottish Government had good reasons for doing that, but so do we, and it is right that we take such steps.
In conclusion, if we want HMRC to do its job effectively, we must ensure that it is fit for the challenge. We must be willing to modernise, find efficiencies, target resources, and make long-term strategic decisions. That is precisely what HMRC is doing by transforming itself into a smaller, more highly-skilled organisation, with modern, digital services, and a data-driven compliance operation that will deliver more for the taxpayer at lower cost. What would the opponents of change prefer? Do they want to rely on a structure that in many respects dates from before the internet era, or to pump in more money without examining where it is going? It is surely right that HMRC carries out efficiencies, targets its resources, and concentrates on delivering for the British taxpayer. That is the policy it has embarked on, and it is already increasing revenue yield and closing the tax gap. That is the policy that the changes will help achieve, and I urge the House to reject the motion.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I salute the Minister’s efforts to make a good fist of things, and the efforts of this Government, and the previous coalition Government, to clamp down on tax avoidance. More should be done, but they took good steps. We need a well-functioning HMRC because we need taxes to pay for the goodies that we and our constituents want. We need a well-functioning HMRC to assist business and to maintain the confidence of taxpayers. We need a well-functioning HMRC for effective anti-money laundering steps, to clamp down on tax evasion, and to protect revenue.
It is desirable for HMRC to act efficiently, and technology is changing what it and other large organisations do. For example, 80% of self-assessment returns are now done online, and that availability of information from HMRC—including specialist knowledge—is greatly aided by the internet. There is a difficult balancing act for HMRC between providing information and guidance to businesses and individual taxpayers, and not providing tax advice, and sometimes that is difficult for staff. Like other Members, I pay tribute to the overwhelmingly hard-working and skilful staff at HMRC around the United Kingdom. It is no criticism of them that we still have a considerable tax gap. Having more staff is likely to help close that gap.
The National Audit Office estimates an 18:1 return on employing extra staff—that means that £1 more in salary means £18 more in revenue. There is, of course, a law of diminishing returns in that scenario. HMRC itself, through its chief executive, estimates a return of 11:1.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions valued staff. Does he agree that, as the Minister said, thousands of valued and very experienced staff will not be able to relocate and will therefore be lost to the Revenue?
Rob Marris
I agree, and I will come on to that in a moment. We have to look at the debate, and at what is happening with HMRC, in the context of the economy overall and the Government’s finances. In the past five years, national debt has gone up 55%. Instead of it taking five years to sort out the deficit, the Government’s own estimates say it will take 10 years. GDP per capita has stalled. The balance of payments deficit is at the highest it has been in peacetime, at 5% of GDP. Productivity has stalled. Home ownership is markedly down. It is now said that we have the fourth lowest rate of home ownership of any European Union member state. Correspondingly, net household debt is rising alarmingly. That is the economic context; we need to protect revenue.
There are problems, of course: the tax gap, to which I referred; an insufficient number of collectors; and an insufficient number of staff dealing with evasion and artificial avoidance measures. There is the difficulty—created, I have to say, by the previous Labour Government —of the disastrous contract with Mapeley, which is based, I think, in the Bahamas. The ownership of the leases of HMRC offices was transferred to Mapeley in 2001. As far as I am aware, the proposals we heard on 12 November do not address that issue in any way, except to say that we are dumping all the offices. Nothing has been said about what will happen to the leases and so on. Perhaps the Minister, in closing, could tell us a bit more about the intersection between the plans and the wretched leases with the wretched Mapeley.
Staff numbers are markedly down in recent years. According to the Office for National Statistics, between 2007 and 2010, under the previous Labour Government, the number of HMRC staff went down 9%. Under the five years of the coalition Government it went down a further 24.4%—a cumulative drop of 31.4%.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman may have been contacted by local trade union representatives in his area. The Public and Commercial Services Union came to see me. It understands that HMRC is currently spending in the region of £70 million on overtime. Does he agree that that indicates that HMRC needs more, and not fewer, staff?
Rob Marris
I agree. There are problems with the workforce, to which several hon. Members have referred. The chief executive of HMRC wrote to me on 12 November, saying:
“We expect that 90% of our current workforce will be able to either work in a regional centre or see out their career in an HMRC office.”
That says to me that the chief executive of HMRC reckons 10% will either not transfer or will be made redundant. That is worrying.
Reference has been made this afternoon to response times. In the first two quarters of 2015, 12 million calls went unanswered—half of all calls to HMRC. Only 39% of calls were answered within five minutes. In the third quarter of this year, after an infusion of staff, the rate of answered calls went up to 76%. That is a great improvement—except that the target is 80%, and in 2014-15 the answer rate was 72.5%. I have to say to the Government, and particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has a family business, that this is the worst of statism. If HMRC were a business, it would have gone bust with that appalling customer service, but because none of us has any choice but to pay taxes, it remains in business. It should not do so. It certainly needs transforming, but cutting the number of staff does not seem to me, or my party, the way to do it.
On anti-money laundering, London is thankfully a major world financial centre, but we have a huge problem with the regime set up to deal with money laundering and to counteract it. The average HMRC fine in 2014-15 for money laundering was £1,134, according to Transparency International, which I thank. That seems a remarkably low figure, although it is not helped by the fact that 14 different regulators are involved in accountancy. If that is not sorted out, HMRC staff cannot do their job properly in relation to anti-money laundering, let alone tax evasion.
As has been said, since June 2014, HMRC has not had any face-to-face walk-in centres. There are a few teams of mobile advisers—a man in a white van dashing around Northern Ireland or northern Scotland, up to Caithness or wherever—for those who desperately need a face-to-face interview, but that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and not one that encourages the taxpayer to feel confident that they are getting the service they should from HMRC. It is extremely worrying that the number of offices is being reduced from 170 to 13.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will recognise that this is a massive programme involving 56,000 staff, the closure of 140 offices and relocation to 20 sites that have yet to be acquired, all within five years. In the 2015 civil service staff survey, almost 80% of HMRC staff thought their management were unable to manage change effectively. Does he agree that there are huge risks in the programme, and that it is potentially a disaster waiting to happen?
Rob Marris
There are huge risks, partly to do with insufficient funding, insufficient staffing and an insufficient number of offices. I regret to say that in my constituency, Crown house—the second and final HMRC office in my constituency—will close. The only silver lining for people in my region is that the specialist office in Telford, Shropshire, down the road, will continue to be HMRC’s IT headquarters.
As a result of these relocations and closures, it is likely that HMRC will haemorrhage staff. It employs a lot of specialist staff. Unlike in many other Departments, an awful lot of staff in the Treasury are very mobile, as there is a ready outlet to the private sector, which often pays more.
Chris Stephens
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that HMRC will have to publish an impact assessment in respect of the social and economic changes and staff with a disability or caring responsibilities?
Rob Marris
I do agree, but I will say more on that in a couple of minutes. Views vary on whether the closure programme is wise. Last week, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I again met Stephen Herring from the Institute of Directors, who broadly—this is paraphrasing his position—welcomes this kind of move because he thinks that technology has transformed, and should further transform, how HMRC operates, and that it should be driven by business efficiencies and so on. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants is broadly in favour of this sort of change, too. Its head of taxation said it was
“reasonable to restructure the offices and we support there being higher skills”.
Correspondingly, the Public and Commercial Services Union, which does a great job representing its members in HMRC and across Government, has grave misgivings —to say the least—about the programme, as does the Association of Revenue and Customs, which is part of the FDA union and represents senior people in HMRC.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend feel that adequate and meaningful consultation, with full regard to the facts, was undertaken on this decision?
Rob Marris
I do not, but again, I will say more in a couple of minutes.
At one end of the spectrum, the IOD says it broadly supports this type of change, and at the other end, the unions say they have grave misgivings. The president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation—hardly known as a supporter of the Labour party, the SNP or any political party—has said:
“Taxpayers and tax professionals alike will be anxious that a public body that is struggling to meet its public-facing service targets has announced that it is about to lose many staff and close its local offices.”
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—I do not know what the position is in Scotland—says that the timing of the changes
“could stretch HMRC to breaking point”,
and that the restructuring of HMRC could be disruptive and could distract its leadership.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the distribution of well-qualified civil servants around the country will alter fundamentally, and that it is simply not on to say to well-qualified civil servants in north Wales that they have to go to Liverpool, no tax offices being left in north Wales at all?
Rob Marris
I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot make any commitment from the Front Bench that a Labour Government would keep every tax office open, but to keep this issue in proportion, in 2010 we had about 393 tax offices collecting an average of well over £1 billion each. Any business that was bringing in that amount of money would be kept open.
David Mowat
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Perhaps he could tell us, on behalf of the Opposition, how many tax offices he thinks we should have. Do we go back to 310, or whatever the number was, or is 170 about right, or should it be even lower? What is the hon. Gentleman’s number?
Rob Marris
This is a classic case of this Government putting the cart before the horse. They announce the closure programme before they have got adequate information. We need a public consultation on this kind of change; we need a business consultation; and we need parliamentary scrutiny, by the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Select Committee, for example. Only when that process has been gone through, could I—or, I would venture, other hon. Members—form a view about how many HMRC offices should be distributed around the United Kingdom, given the changes brought about by technology and the desire for efficiency, and, balanced against that, the desire for a customer-facing service.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. I accept that there has not been meaningful consultation and not enough scrutiny of the financial case. Does he agree with me, following what was said by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), that where an alternative financial, economic and social case can be put, it should be reconsidered?
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced and versatile Member, replies, I remind colleagues that the convention—a fairly long-standing one—is that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson for the party whose Opposition day it is not would ordinarily make a Front-Bench speech of about 10 minutes. The hon. Gentleman is a little over that. I am conscious that 18 Members wish to speak, and this is not a conventional Opposition day but the SNP’s Opposition day, so a brief contribution from the Labour spokesman is absolutely right and proper, but we need to get on to Back-Bench debate pretty sharpish.
Rob Marris
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. In fact, I had finished my speech but for the intervention. I shall respond to it briefly now. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), and I think the Minister was very open in responding to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). That is precisely the sort of investigation we needed before these sweeping changes were announced. There should be consultation, investigation and much more publicly available evidence.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman confirms his reputation as a gentleman. It is very much appreciated that he took what I said literally. We shall have to start with a five-minute limit. I call Mr Philip Davies.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I am in a difficult position, because I did not agree with much of what the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) had to say in respect of her overall analysis of the situation. I tend to agree with the Minister’s view: it is preferable to save jobs rather than save buildings, if the choice comes down to that. However, I think the way in which HMRC has gone about this has been rather cack-handed, so I do not feel able to support the Government either. I shall have to reflect further before the Division at 7 o’clock.
I want to focus on the decision in West Yorkshire. In Shipley, a tax office employing 924 staff is due to close. In Bradford there are two further offices, one with 358 employees and the other with 632. HMRC currently employs a total of 2,300 people in the Bradford district. To close down all the offices in Bradford and locate a regional hub in Leeds makes absolutely no sense.
The Minister will say that of course everyone is going to be a nimby and argue for their own areas but he must look at the bigger picture, and I accept all that. I would not decry any of it. My starting point is this: what produces the best value for money for the taxpayer in the United Kingdom? That should be at the forefront of what the Government are trying to do, but what they are actually doing, in a rather bizarre way, is locating a regional hub in a place that will be more expensive for the taxpayer than a very feasible alternative. If this is all about value for money for the taxpayer, why on earth should the Government make that decision? They should be making decisions based on what will be cheapest for the taxpayer.
Let me explain to the Minister why it would be more sensible to base a regional hub in Bradford rather than Leeds, and draw his attention to the flaws in the Government’s decision. Accommodation costs in Bradford are at least 20% lower than those in Leeds. That, too, would be a considerable saving for the taxpayer, and I do not think the Minister should turn his nose up at it. Most of the staff who will be moved would commute over shorter distances, because so many existing workers are from the Bradford district, and it would be much better for most of the staff to stay there.
The Minister may or may not wish to confirm this, but the decision seems to have been made on the basis that the only way to recruit top-quality staff, or staff with a certain ability, is to locate the offices in Leeds rather than Bradford. Not only is that insulting to Bradford, but it is based on no facts whatsoever. It is complete and utter bunkum. Saltaire, in my constituency, contains one of the most technologically advanced businesses in the country, Pace International. It is the biggest provider of set-top boxes in the world, and it does not seem to have experienced any problems recruiting high-level and high-quality staff to the Bradford district. If HMRC’s argument made any sense, the Minister would be saying that companies like that could never locate in the Bradford district, and that they would have to go to Leeds to acquire staff of the necessary calibre. HMRC’s thinking has been flawed from the start.
If that has not persuaded the Minister, I suggest that he visit any of the stations on the Airedale line in the morning, and then visit Leeds station during the rush hour. If he does so, he will find legions and legions of people—thousands and thousands—who live in Airedale, in the Bradford district, and who would presumably prefer to work there but are making the journey into Leeds to their jobs. They are already attracted to the Bradford district. They are already living there. If the Minister and HMRC’s argument made any sense, they would all be living in Leeds. If that were the place to be, they would not be living in Bradford. Bradford is a place where many people choose and prefer to live, and it is ridiculous of HMRC to argue that the only way to attract quality staff is to base an office in Leeds.
It seems to me that this is all about what is in the best interests of the London-based HMRC staff. I am delighted that the hon. Members for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) are present. We will all work together, and I hope that the Minister will listen to the arguments and change his mind.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to contribute to the debate. The time constraint just goes to show how important the motion is. I hope that in future there will be time for us to debate this important issue seriously.
More than 800 staff are employed at HMRC’s two facilities in my constituency, Sidlaw House and Caledonian House. When I met some of the staff last Friday, they confided in me their fears about the recent announcement of significant job losses, which is just the latest in a series of devastating attacks on public service jobs that Dundee has endured at the hands of successive Westminster Governments. That is completely at odds with what is happening in Dundee just now. The city is undergoing a £1 billion regeneration project—one of the most extensive in these islands—and employment is on the up, bucking the national trend. At the stroke of a pen, however, this Westminster Government have single-handedly put at risk the progress the city has recently been making to create and protect jobs. This has been done without public consultation or ministerial sign-off.
Unlike Scottish Government civil servants, HMRC staff will not be covered by a ministerial commitment to no compulsory redundancies. At Caledonian House, for example, we understand that 130 jobs are to be stripped from the city. I am told that the work carried out there predominantly relates to corporation tax and compliance. Ten years ago, there were more than 200 HMRC staff there. The office now occupies half the space, and it looks as though it could be boarded up by 2018.
Skilled employees, some of whom have 30 years’ experience and have provided decades of loyal service, have been abandoned by an organisation to which they have dedicated their whole career. The office currently has only two members of staff at grade 6 or 7. I disagree with the Minister’s statement that training would continue. There used to be 10 staff at those grades as well as four trainees, of whom there are now only two.
Staff at Caledonian House are being told that the best outcome they can hope for is a possible transfer to the new Edinburgh or Glasgow centres. If—I repeat, if—HMRC chooses to re-employ those staff, which I am told is by no means automatic, the impact on them and their families will be dramatic. Most HMRC employees in Dundee will be well outwith an hour’s commute of the new regional offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow, which is what HMRC defines as “reasonable daily travel”. So by HMRC’s own definition, it will be asking staff to do something that it does not consider to be reasonable.
Caledonian House is set to be shut down and boarded up by 2018, as I have said, yet we are being told that the new regional centres in Edinburgh and Glasgow will not open until 2020-21 at the earliest. That raises another question. What plans, if any, does HMRC have for the 130 staff at Caledonian House? In a letter that I recently received from HMRC’s chief executive Lin Homer, she stated:
“As Caledonian House is some distance away from the new regional centre, our employees will not automatically move to the regional centre once this office closes.”
So there we have it, in black and white: HMRC can offer no guarantees of job safety to existing employees at Caledonian House. They will be forced to apply for a job at the new regional centres. If that is not a betrayal of a loyal and dedicated workforce, I do not know what is. At Caledonian House alone, there are 10 couples working under the same roof, so there will be an impact not just on sole employees but on couples. This will have a devastating effect on the lives of those families.
The rationale for closing Caledonian House early is shrouded in mystery. HMRC has stated:
“The closure date for Caledonian House reflects the timing of when we will restructure the work that is currently located there.”
However, two senior officials who visited Caledonian House on Tuesday 17 November could not tell staff how those restructuring plans would play out. What are we to take from this? One local union representative told me:
“Mixed messages or misinformation are the only assumptions that can be made.”
Chris Law
In a word, yes.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that HMRC is making this up as it goes along. There are 650 people working at Sidlaw House who have been offered nothing more than empty promises about a potential move to the Department for Work and Pensions to work on universal credit. We know that the DWP is undertaking its own potentially far-reaching estate review in the face of what are likely to be swingeing cuts in tomorrow’s autumn statement, which could very well see it, too, pulling out of the city altogether. The employees at Sidlaw House deserve better. They deserve to know the truth.
Dundee cannot afford to lose these highly skilled jobs. The plans as they stand represent an absolute hammer blow for the city, with at least 130 skilled jobs being cut by a Tory Government with no mandate in Scotland. As I have said, there is also no clarity about the 650 jobs at Sidlaw House, or whether they will be transferred to the DWP. Families across the city will be devastated by this news and worried about the future. I cannot stress my opposition to this strongly enough.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
As a newly elected member of the Public Accounts Committee, I recently had the opportunity to look closely at HMRC’s efforts to increase the amount of tax it collects and how it plans to do better. Our latest report, published on 3 November, made it clear that it is our opinion that HMRC has continued to fail in its customer service standards, and that if it is to collect much more of the tax due to the Treasury, modern, fit-for-purposes systems that support the Government’s “Digital by default” agenda must be in place.
At the moment, HMRC’s 58,000 employees are spread across 170 offices, many a legacy of the 1960s and 1970s. Their staff numbers range from fewer than 10 to some 6,000 people. To meet the customer service standards and increase tax revenues, the service needs to be providing its customers with modern services, at a lower cost to the taxpayer. As the Minister mentioned, this year HMRC recruited 3,000 additional staff to customer-facing teams. Those staff are providing services in the evenings and at weekends, building capacity outside normal working hours, which helps the taxpayer who is trying to sort out her tax payments. That is a great step forward: a major government body is changing its working practices to meet its customer demand. Many more customers now want to work out their tax payments online, at a time of their choosing. HMRC’s investment in digital services, simpler and more user-friendly portals and work with accountancy software designers to make small business financial packages automatically link into HMRC’s reporting systems is freeing up staff to deal with more complex tax problems.
Rebecca Pow
Are not 80% of customers already filling in their tax forms online? That proves exactly what my hon. Friend has been saying about modernising being the right approach.
Mrs Trevelyan
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, because what she says is exactly right. We have to be mindful of that situation as HMRC moves forward in this digital world. HMRC collected £518 billion from UK taxpayers in 2014-15, an increase of £12 billion on the previous year. Over the past five years, a continuously increasing tax take has been matched by a reduction in running costs from £3.4 billion to £3.1 billion. I believe the Chancellor is totally committed to supporting HMRC to do its job better, and the Budget in July gave it a further £800 million to invest in compliance work over the next five years and collect an additional £7 billion in tax take.
There will, however, remain a tax gap, and challenging and overcoming that will continue to need the most modern systems and highly qualified staff. In search of such, the move to modern, regional centres across the UK will bring together the skills and the efficiency of resource and talents to maximise tax collection. HMRC expects the majority of its existing staff to be able to move to the regional centres, with a 10-year phasing to minimise redundancies. There will eventually be a modern, digitised organisation with fewer staff, but I have every hope that the programme of change is being well managed—I will be continuing to monitor it, as will the PAC.
I have some concerns about the regional centre plans. For example, I question the need for two London-based sites, in Stratford and Croydon, given that there is no base in East Anglia, where I would have thought running costs were lower. In the north-east, we already have a major HMRC centre at Longbenton in Newcastle, which supports a wide variety of tax-collecting divisions. The changes in staffing levels and working hours are starting to improve customer service there, and it is key that we make sure HMRC maximises the investment in its quality of staff and effectiveness across the UK to get the maximum benefit. HMRC’s modernisation of its efficiency and digital service provision is vital if the service is to continue to reduce that tax gap in order to help us to pay for the public services—the goodies, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) called them—we all want to see, to transform its services to customers and to be able to clamp down further on the minority who are still trying to cheat the system.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
On 12 November, HMRC made its “Building our Future: location strategy” announcement. As far as I am concerned, that is the precursor to the end of 50 years of my constituency’s links with the civil service as a major public employer. More than 2,500 hard-working, committed, loyal and productive staff at four sites will be affected by the announcement, of whom almost 700 are my constituents. Many of them are my friends, and many of them work in specialist and complex areas of investigation and administration. Regrettably, I found out about the detail—I use the word “detail” very loosely—in a very short letter from the chief executive. It was sent at 2.14 pm on 12 November, which was when Parliament was in recess. It said:
“I am writing to let you know that HMRC has today announced the next step in our ten-year modernisation programme to create a tax authority fit for the future, committing to high quality jobs and the creation of 13 new regional centres serving every region and nation in the UK.”
Members should consider how it feels to tell that to the hundreds of people who will lose their jobs, and to the thousands who will be moved out of my town centre. It seems that every Tom, Dick and Harry knew about the change before I did, and that is disrespectful not to me, but to the thousands of people in my constituency who are affected.
On reading the letter, it almost felt as if I should be grateful to HMRC for continuing to employ people anywhere to collect tax, and as if the service was expanding rather than contracting. I do not know how it managed to do that, but it did.
As I understand it, almost 170 offices will be closing, and they will be replaced by 13 regional centres and four specialist sites over the next five years, although some existing sites will remain open for longer. By 2021, HMRC will be operating out of just 35 locations. For staff in Bootle, the news is particularly shocking.
Litherland House is expected to close in 2018-19, followed by the Triad tax office and St John’s House in 2019-20. Comben House will also close. Those closures will have a significant and, in many cases, devastating impact on large numbers of people, staff and families. The implication in the letter is that staff should be grateful for having a job, even if it has a major effect on their lives, which is an absolute disgrace.
Many staff will face additional costs, with car parking charges and so on, and a detrimental effect on their family lives. They will have to travel to a regional centre, the location of which they have not yet been told. HMRC has announced that it will move to these regional centres, but it will not say where those centres will be. It will be devastating news wherever it is if it is not in the centre of my town. Many questions must be asked, but before I ask some of them, let me just quote Accountancy Live, which is a web-based professional site. It says:
Tax advisers and professional bodies are sceptical about whether HMRC’s plans to close 137 offices…cut real estate costs and save £100m, will deliver improvements in customer service levels, amid concerns that the changes could stretch the tax department to breaking point.”
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cuts will put HMRC under even more pressure at a time when more resources are needed to militate against the ongoing problems that both HMRC and Concentrix are causing? Numerous constituents have contacted me, suffering from the inadequacies of both departments, and I am sure that those problems will only be exacerbated by the cuts.
Peter Dowd
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is a fantasy to suggest that, by closing all these offices, we will be able to collect more tax and to tackle fraud.
Let me put a few questions to the Minister. When will the locations of the new regional centres be announced? Has an equality impact assessment been carried out on all the areas affected, particularly the four sites in my constituency? When did HMRC establish which sites were to close, and why was the decision not subject to consultation with Members of Parliament, trade unions, the Treasury Committee, and the Public Accounts Committee? Will the impact of additional costs be factored into the departmental deals, as there has been a pay freeze for God knows how long? What level of community or local business consultation has taken place ahead of the announcements? As far as I am concerned, absolutely none has taken place. Have the following losses to HMRC been taken into account? What about redundancies, income tax, local business tax, increase in jobseeker’s allowance, income support claims, national insurance contributions? The list goes on.
In my constituency specifically, what will happen to the 136 benefits and credits staff currently based at the Triad? When Litherland House closes, how will the other Bootle offices accommodate the staff? What will be the cost of the temporary building adjustments needed until 2020? What will be the cost of altering the software in order to move profiles around sites during the transition period? The questions go on, but we have had not one answer. I demand answers to those questions.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I wish to make the case not only for Alexander House in Southend to remain open and keep its jobs, but for it to expand. I am beginning to think that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) will support the idea of Southend becoming the regional site.
Like the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), I knew nothing about the planned closure. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I have had a private chat and I do not blame him. He is an excellent Minister and we have a very strong Treasury team. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and I share responsibility for Southend and the building is in his constituency, but I think that just as many of my and his constituents work there. I have been on the back foot on this issue, but not anymore—I am on the front foot now. I remind my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that he visited Alexander House two years ago. He, my hon. Friend and I had a wonderful tour of the building and he learned at first hand about its strong tradition and the loyalties among its staff. It has superb expertise and I think it is the second or third biggest employer in the borough of Southend. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary seemed very impressed with everything he heard. Indeed, Her Majesty the Queen visited the building a few years ago and I know that she was also very impressed with everything she saw.
I absolutely support and accept the overall strategy. Our Treasury team is doing a wonderful job in sorting out the public finances in the light of the terrible mess we were left with in 2010. However, I was born in Stratford and I hate to be in the position of pitting one area against another. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is a splendid colleague, but Stratford is getting everything. It got the Olympic games—I chaired the Bill for that—and it now has my football team, West Ham, so I am loth to stand by and remain silent. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke about East Anglia and questioned the logic of having the office in Stratford. I do not understand, either. I would have thought that, on economies of scale, Southend was entirely the right place for it to go.
As it stands, Southend will lose 1,265 jobs, which is absolutely devastating. I am also told that the Southend base will continue as a transitional office for staff from other nearby offices that are due to close before Southend. When my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary or my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary sum up the debate, I do not know whether they will say for how long Southend will be a transitional office, but I imagine that once those other employees have moved to Southend they will not want to leave, because, as we all know, it is this country’s premier seaside resort and the alternative city of culture 2017. I know from my discussions with the local authority that Southend will offer the Treasury a very attractive deal if my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary agrees to have Southend as a regional site.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East and me. I hope we will have a detailed discussion about travel arrangements and possible redundancy payments, but I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to think again. I hope that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East will be able to persuade him to have the regional site in Southend.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate and to put on record the profound disappointment and, indeed, anger felt by my constituents, who have for years worked incredibly hard at Cumbernauld tax office. I want also to express the huge disquiet felt across the town at these proposals to close down our biggest employer and relocate good-quality jobs elsewhere. All that comes, as other hon. Members have said, with little in the way of explanation and even less in the way of consultation.
On any view at all, the announcement made two weeks ago about the HMRC offices is of enormous significance and has the potential to cause immense disruption to the staff affected, to the communities where those tax offices are currently based and to the services that HMRC provides in collecting taxes. It is astonishing to me that the Government think that such a major announcement does not merit so much as a ministerial statement.
I have received no correspondence from HMRC, so I feel like I have been missed out a little compared with honourable colleagues. However, my colleague Jamie Hepburn MSP received a letter similar to that sent to my hon. Friends, full of vague management-speak rather than information. There were no parliamentary debates until we secured this one. PCS representatives were not consulted on the criteria used by HMRC for site selection or on outline decisions, and they agree with neither. That is not good enough at such a huge moment for HMRC and its staff.
HMRC claims that £100 million of estate savings will be generated each year by 2025, despite not knowing where these brand-new city centre sites will be and how much they will cost. If HMRC has such confidence in the model it proposes, the supposed savings that it will make and the claimed benefits to service standards, it should have nothing to fear from extensive scrutiny, so let us have that extensive scrutiny. Will the Government agree to a full debate on, and scrutiny of these detailed proposals here in Parliament, to both public consultation and full consultation with PCS, and to the pausing of implementation while all that is under way?
To say that the months leading up to the announcement have been a frustrating and worrying time for hard-working and dedicated staff in HMRC offices across the UK would be a grave understatement. Up to 1,600 people in Cumbernauld will be directly impacted once we factor in IT staff provided by contractors, as well as catering and cleaning staff. Most frustratingly, between woolly press releases, vague correspondence and contradictory information at staff meetings, many questions remain unanswered. HMRC’s letter to my colleague Jamie Hepburn, which I think was almost identical to that received by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) and others, said that
“90% of our current workforce, including the majority of those working for us in your constituency, will be able to either work in a regional centre or see out their career in an HMRC office”.
The hon. Gentleman raised several issues arising from that letter. I would also ask, how big is the majority of staff who will continue to be able to work in HMRC offices? There is a grave lack of clarity.
The Government have said that there will be no compulsory redundancies. Yet, on the other hand, workers in Cumbernauld have been told that no voluntary packages will be available to them. Given that we know that the Government require a cut in the workforce in the west of Scotland in order to fit them in the new office, people are rightly asking whether the Government are seeking to lose staff on the cheap, hoping that they will jump without having properly to compensate them.
Staff also ask whether it is coincidence that rules on acceptable travel distances in the event of relocation have recently been tightened to their detriment and why travel allowances have been limited to three to five years. What about those who already commute from a considerable distance east or north of Cumbernauld, many of whom are closer to Edinburgh? Why are they not being allowed to choose the Edinburgh hub ahead of Glasgow? Will there be options such as home-working or other creative solutions? While measures on retraining and redeployment could be positive, we need to see so much more detail before we can judge how meaningful they are.
Most importantly, people need to know when exactly they will be expected to move. Is it soon, towards the end of the five-year period or some time in between? Is their job moving with them or are they moving to a new job in terms not only of location but of role? HMRC claims that people will be better able to develop careers up to senior levels, but my constituents fear that their good-quality roles will be replaced with poorer quality work.
On so many levels this does not seem a well thought-through plan, and it should go back to the drawing board. What is particularly perplexing in the context of Cumbernauld is that some of the proposed regional centres will hold as few as 1,200 staff. Cumbernauld hosts between 1,500 and 1,600, so why not retain it if that is efficient enough as part of the new model?
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I also welcome the modernisation of HMRC. It is right that the service is streamlined. Value for the taxpayer and customer service must be at the heart of our reforms, and I truly believe that it is possible to save money and improve customer service. At the end of the day, like many things in business, it comes down to efficiency and productivity, both of which have proved increasingly difficult to achieve in the current system, as has been pointed out.
It is imperative that we collect the taxes that are due and crack down on tax avoidance. People in my constituency of Taunton Deane often raise that with me, and Members from all parts of the House are concerned about it, which is why we need a system that will get to grips with problems, especially tax avoidance. Bringing together a highly skilled workforce based in specialist buildings will help to meet that challenge. I have sympathy for people who work in offices that are going to close, but the existing offices are old-fashioned, and many of them are in buildings built in the 1960s and ’70s. They are stuck in the dark ages.
Rebecca Pow
I am going to plough on, because we have been told that we cannot speak for long.
A move out of outdated offices, many of them in London, will help to achieve major savings on those antiquated properties. It is the kind of common-sense approach that all businesses take to achieve cost savings and to improve efficiency. I have been assured that it is anticipated that many staff will move to new regional centres. Bristol has been proposed as the centre for the south-west, but I would like to suggest that the county town of Somerset—Taunton, in the heart of my constituency of Taunton Deane—be considered for a regional centre. I would welcome a discussion on that, and I have been contacted by the powers that be in Taunton Deane. There is a wonderful location for such a centre on junction 25 of the M5 in our new strategic employment site, providing easy access for everyone, everywhere.
Rebecca Pow
I am going to plough on.
Streamlining office buildings is not the only component of the modernisation programme, as we have heard. There is a full programme of measures, including investment in online services; new compliance techniques; and other initiatives that make it easier for taxpayers to access the system. We are all keen to pay our taxes. The benefits of those measures, as I have said, have come into play, as 80% of customers complete their self-assessment online, saving time and money, and moving us towards a 21st-century system.
I have been approached by many constituents about the difficulty of accessing the tax office. I have intervened in such cases and, once I have done so, the service has been good. However, I welcome the upgrade and I fully expect that it will make life easier. Indeed, the 3,000 extra staff who came on board at the weekend to handle phone calls will help. As I have said, I applaud the opportunity for more personal contact where appropriate.
To sum up, major investment in a new, modern system with highly skilled staff, many of whom are already working for HMRC, and many of whom we will train, will bring in more revenue at less cost to the taxpayer, so the streamlining of HMRC, once it beds in, will be a win, win, win.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I say to the Minister that this was an absolutely appalling announcement. It was appalling in the way it was done. I was sitting in a conference at 2.14 pm—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for reminding me of the time—with two Tory Ministers talking to us in north Wales about rebalancing the economy when I received a missive, not from a Minister or the Government but from a civil servant telling me that 350 people in my constituency in Wrexham would be made redundant or transferred from north Wales to Liverpool, where they would be in hot competition with individuals from Bootle trying to find jobs. I was told by email what the Conservative Government think of north Wales.
Never has there been a sharper contrast between rhetoric and reality. This Government supposedly talk about rebalancing the economy. Other colleagues in the Chamber have made the point that the sites identified and set out in the letter that was sent to us do not yet exist. This was an ideal opportunity for the Government to take a sensible approach to rebalancing the economy with taxpayers’ money, by shifting jobs out of areas that are economically successful and expensive, such as London or Cardiff, to other areas, such as north Wales. In Wrexham there are places available to house highly skilled workers providing a first class service in a new online age. The House need not take my word for it. We have in Wrexham high quality service companies such as Moneypenny, which provides virtual office services, and DTCC Avox, which provides company search facilities not just within the UK, but right across the world. They are expanding and bringing jobs to Wrexham in order to be more competitive.
This Government do not know their backside from their elbow. They do not recognise that already we have 350 highly skilled people in Wrexham who are doing an excellent job. In addition, we have people in the local economy who have been identified by the private sector as being particularly skilled at providing exactly the services that this Government or any Government need to bring in more money to eliminate the deficit that the Minister told us in 2010 would be gone by today but is still there because of the economic incompetence of the Tory party.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman made the point, as did the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), that the sites were not known yet. A site is already available in the Bradford district that HMRC could move to, whereas in Leeds there is no identified site yet. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very bad negotiation for the Government to say that they are going to go to a particular place without a site, because if they do identify a site the landowner will have them over a barrel when the negotiations take place?
Ian C. Lucas
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him—which, I think, is a first in the 14 years I have been here—for his excellent speech. The points that he made mirrored many of the points I have been making and intend to make. It makes no sense whatsoever for the Government to approach the issue in the way they have.
I shall speak specifically about Wrexham because I am here to represent my constituents. It is incredible that the only HMRC service in Wales will be in Cardiff city centre. Cardiff city centre is boom town. The announcement from HMRC was followed last week by the BBC announcing the creation of its new centre for Wales in Cardiff city centre, so HMRC had better hurry up and find a site or there will be no room left in Cardiff.
The Minister is a reasonable man. I find it incredible that he has been in the Treasury since 2010, because he is a reasonable man. I ask him please to look at the announcement again. I mean it seriously. I cannot understand the rationale for the announcement economically, politically, intellectually or in any sense. He should listen to the sensible debate. I am grateful to the SNP for bringing the topic to the Floor of the House and I will certainly support the motion today.
We desperately need a fundamental rethink, because the Government are talking about our money—our money, taking jobs away from a place like Bootle! They should be using public money to support economic development in the parts of our country that need it most. That is common sense, I say to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I ran my own business, and if I did it pursuing policies like this, I would have been bankrupt before I started.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In opposing this motion, I wish to applaud HMRC’s excellent work over recent years. Thanks to its endeavours, there has been a reduction in the tax gap to its lowest level of 6.4%. That is a long-term trend showing that the targeted approach to tackling non-payment is working. However, the issue facing HMRC today is that in attempting to calculate and pay their taxes, taxpayers are spending 30 minutes or longer waiting to discuss their affairs. In the first half of 2015, 50% of callers were not answered at all.
It is clear to me that the current tax centre arrangements are not working and need modernising. It makes huge sense to replace the numerous local offices, where staff levels range from 6,000 employees to just 10, with regional centres that will give a more balanced and even coverage. This follows the trend of other service operators in moving to a regional model. Indeed, it is not just service centres that are moving to regional, or indeed country, models. Last Friday, listening to the First Minister of Scotland on an excellent “Desert Island Discs”, I was struck by her reasoning for moving Scotland’s police towards a one-country force. I therefore ask why it has taken so long for HMRC to move to this type of model. Banks were setting up current account centres when I was a 16-year-old working as a cashier for Abbey National in my holidays. [Interruption.] It was many years back.
In an increasingly technological age, it is outmoded to continue to argue, as this motion tacitly does, that the effectiveness of an operation is down to the number of workers, or their location, rather than the completion of the work itself. In many public-facing industries, technology means that human input is no longer required or is required less. In reducing and streamlining its staff numbers, I welcome HMRC’s intention to invest in technology to make itself more efficient. In an age when many of my constituents elect to complete their work online, it makes more sense to move funding to the areas where HMRC is able to target avoidance.
In my constituency, where we have two offices that will be replaced by a regional centre in Croydon, for the past year it has not been possible for my constituents to go and discuss their tax arrangements: that walk-in service has been unavailable. I therefore cannot see how they will be inconvenienced by the fact that the person they speak to on the phone is no longer in Hastings but in Croydon.
It is of course always regrettable when new service models, driven by new technologies, and the preference of the public to work online rather than deal face to face, lead to the potential for redundancies. As is the case for any employee faced with the uncertainty of redundancy, I have the greatest sympathy for those impacted, and I am glad that our economy is performing strongly enough to give confidence and optimism to those who may be rejoining the jobs market. However, I contend that it would be wrong to hold back modernisation, to use resources that can otherwise be better targeted in the sophisticated fight to win more tax receipts, and to fail to address the shortcomings in customer service. I therefore welcome these changes to HMRC and will vote favour of them today.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Government have been dismantling their tax services in Wales for 15 years, and the “Building our Future” location proposals are the final nail in the coffin of a tax service that used to operate a very effective network for taxpayers across Wales. Not so long ago, there were offices to be found in 22 towns and cities. Fast forward five years from today and the Government propose that there will be only one centre, and that will be in south-east Wales.
HMRC’s Porthmadog office at Ty Moelwyn in my constituency is once again earmarked for closure. It is the home of the tax office’s Welsh language unit. This is not just about offices, but about staff. There was no mention of the Welsh language unit in the mail merged letter I received during the recess. The office in Gwynedd is well placed to attract and retain fluent Welsh-speaking staff. It offers that rare thing—a naturally Welsh-speaking workplace. Importantly, it also serves the region of Wales where demand for Welsh-language services is highest. As one of its users, I urge every Welsh speaker to take advantage of using the office, even those who lack the confidence to discuss financial matters in Welsh, not for the good of the language, but because the Porthmadog staff are good at their job.
Beyond Porthmadog’s specific and limited Welsh language remit, HMRC’s commitment falls far short of the statutory requirement, according to the Welsh Language Act 1993, to treat the Welsh and English languages as equal when providing public services in Wales. I am currently working on behalf of a constituent who has been told that he cannot use Welsh to resolve a chapel’s tax affairs. Business customers tell me the same about their businesses. Others complain of waiting for 40 minutes and more before the telephone system will allow them to access the service in Welsh.
The proposal is that the service can be maintained just as effectively in Cardiff. The county of Gwynedd is home to 77,000 Welsh speakers, which is 65.4% of the county’s population; Cardiff has fewer than half that number of Welsh speakers. The Government are intent on moving the service from a rural region where Welsh is the language of everyday life and civic administration to an urban centre 150 miles and four hours’ drive away, which is about as far from its likely users as it is possible to go and still be in Wales.
The tax office has had the honesty to admit that it is not realistic to expect workers from Porthmadog to travel to south-east Wales. Workers at Wrexham and Swansea are being offered the option of transferring to Liverpool or Cardiff. That sounds fair until we recall that former reorganisations offered workers the option of moving to workplaces that are now in turn threatened. This is in the month when it was announced that unemployment in Wales rose by 3,000—news that was described by the Secretary of State for Wales as a “disappointing set of figures”.
The closure of the offices is a body blow to plans to devolve tax powers to Wales. On the one hand, the Tory Government extol the virtue of Wales taking more control over our taxes—Plaid Cymru has proposed that for years—yet, on the other hand, the means of administrating such powers is shuffled across the border to England. The level of reorganisation proposed should be subject to proper public and parliamentary scrutiny at UK level, as well as with the PCS Union.
There are specific issues unique to Wales that must be addressed. First, changes to how Welsh language services are provided should be the subject of a language impact review, as is customarily required for public sector Welsh language schemes. Secondly, the administrative requirements of increasing tax devolution should be identified and the views of the National Assembly for Wales sought.
I urge the Government to reconsider the impact of their proposals on services in Wales, on services to Welsh speakers and on services to the nation as a whole in the light of the devolution agenda, and in particular to reconsider the significance of well-paid public sector jobs in a low-wage economy such as that of Dwyfor Meirionnydd.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Moving more of HMRC’s work out of central London, which has some of the world’s most expensive office space, will enable it to make substantial savings. It is right that HMRC makes whatever savings it can on its property costs so that the money that it does have can be used to improve customer service and maximise tax revenues. It cannot be sustainable for its 58,000 full-time employees to be spread across 170 offices around the country, many of which, as has been, said are little more than a legacy of the 1960s and 1970s. That is highly inefficient.
However, while recognising the need to modernise and reform, we have a responsibility to make sure that HMRC’s staff are treated fairly. I therefore hope that everything possible will be done to retain skills and expertise within HMRC by making sure that as many of the workforce as possible are redeployed. In particular, I emphasise the need for support for the local workers in Brierley Hill in my constituency who choose to transfer to the Birmingham regional centre, and for support and retraining for those who do not transfer to the new centre. I hope that in implementing the changes, HMRC’s management will work closely with colleagues to see how many Brierley Hill and Merry Hill staff might be taken on by the Department for Work and Pensions when the Merry Hill office is transferred to the DWP.
My constituents in Dudley South expect the same high standards from HMRC as they expect from banks and retailers. This programme will help meet those expectations. People in my constituency will welcome the creation of a regional centre in the west midlands, with the high-quality jobs and skills such a centre brings. I am pleased that as part of the modernisation programme, HMRC plans to work with universities and local colleges to attract the best and brightest talent. Although I recognise the importance of Birmingham as Britain’s second city, I urge HMRC not to rule out the black country as a suitable location for the west midlands regional centre.
Quite rightly, Members and residents expect HMRC to increase tax revenues, while cutting running costs, as it has done over the last five years. An additional £11.9 billion was collected last year and an additional £57 billion has been collected over the past decade. Total tax revenue has increased in each of the past five years, during which time HMRC has reduced its running costs from £3.4 billion to £3.1 billion, including £210 million in sustainable cost savings last year alone. However, HMRC cannot rest on its laurels; it must continue to build on these significant achievements. We expect a lot from HMRC.
The changing demands on the organisation mean that ways of operating that might have been appropriate in the past might not be appropriate for the future. Like all organisations, HMRC must continue to adapt if it is to be as effective and responsive as we all want, while operating as efficiently as we must all surely demand. We owe it to HMRC’s leadership to allow them the independence they need to make the changes that they have decided are necessary to meet the challenges. That is why I will support the Government and oppose the motion this evening.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this extremely important debate.
It has been announced that the Hawbank Stores site and the East Kilbride Plaza site in my constituency are due to close in 2021. The Queensway House site is due to close in 2026, but that proposal is tentative and depends on whether better lease terms can be agreed.
The restructuring of HMRC is a direct result of the Treasury’s demand for a 30% cut to its budget to satisfy the Chancellor’s austerity agenda, which the majority of the people of Scotland did not vote for. The result is that many people in my constituency face uncertainty and anxiety over their future because of the Westminster Government’s ideological drive to cut public services.
The East Kilbride tax office and its workforce are a significant and long-standing institution in the local community and in the economy of my constituency. Everyone in my constituency is related to or knows someone who works there or has worked there. In fact, my grandmother worked as a tax office clerk in East Kilbride some 30 years ago.
Some workers may have the opportunity to be relocated to the proposed regional offices. That will be of no consolation to those who lose their jobs and neither will it negate the anxiety in the interim, as people wait to find out their fate.
At a time when tens of billions of pounds are still lost to tax evasion, these cuts make no sense. They are likely to have a detrimental impact on society and the economy at a local and national level. Removing those jobs from the local area does not only affect the employees involved because it has a wider impact on the whole community. It is likely to have a significantly adverse impact on local businesses and other jobs, and cause great difficulty in promoting economic growth. We want to encourage companies and services to locate to our constituency, not to leave. For those workers who are moved to regional offices, the additional and enforced commute is likely to impact on their personal lives by reducing the time that they can spend with their families. That is likely to have additional financial implications owing to extra travel and the bearing it could have on childcare.
The closures are counterproductive and send a clear message that the Government are going soft on tax collection and tax evasion. It is appalling and draconian that three offices are proposed to close in my constituency. Oscar Wilde famously wrote:
“To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”
I suggest that to lose three tax offices is unforgivable, and if the closures go ahead, it will be ingrained forever that the Conservatives are no friends of the people of East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow.
I urge the Minister to return to the drawing board—he has been described by some as “reasonable”—and to consult, review, conduct impact assessments, and urgently to meet me and local staff, my colleagues and devolved Governments, and my hon. Friends who have spoken today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I am sorry but I must drop the speech limit to four minutes to ensure that we accommodate everybody.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) mentioned that this announcement had been a surprise. The skilled staff of the HMRC office in Inverness were anticipating some changes, but instead they received a hammer blow. The plan to close 137 local offices and replace them with 13 regional centres by 2027 hid the news that that will happen in Inverness in 2017-18—hardly time to draw breath on the decision. HMRC employs 8,330 people in Scotland, which is 13% of all UK HMRC staff—hardly a dividend worth retaining if that is the way we are to be treated.
The Public and Commercial Services Union has said that 11,000 full-time equivalent staff posts had been cut from HMRC since 2010, and that any further cuts would be “absolutely devastating.” Its general secretary, Mark Serwotka, stated:
“Closing this many offices would pose a significant threat to the operation of HMRC, its service to the public and the working lives of staff, and the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the plans is undeniable and urgent.”
I am delighted that the SNP has initiated this debate in the House to provide just that.
In my constituency, more than 50 staff face losing their jobs. Many are women and over 50 years old, and—most importantly—all are skilled in dealing with complex tax problems for people across the UK. Not only do they save money for HMRC and the taxpayer, but they save businesses from going into administration and provide people with vital advice. I have met those workers, and I was impressed with how flexible they can be, and how they operate in a virtual team. They have been retrained many times in the past.
The Government talk about creating a more modern HMRC, but why have they not taken time to look at Inverness, the fastest growing city in Scotland? The hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) spoke about the expense of London, but there is nothing expensive about Inverness. It has great people and a great facility, yet that is being taken away. That is not the best way to deal with the issue. There is no evidence of any assessment of the impact on staff with disabilities or caring responsibilities, or of the social, economic and environmental effects of this move.
Chris Stephens
Do not the points raised by Members from across the House show that, given the lack of a basic impact assessment, the proposals should be ripped up and we should start again?
Drew Hendry
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is the vice-chair of the parliamentary Public and Commercial Services Union group and knows what he is talking about. There has been no assessment. Skilled workers in my constituency have dedicated their lives and careers to working for HMRC, and they have been left cold by this announcement. They have been hung out to dry. It is absolutely vital that there be a review focusing on the people who have spent many years training to do a job that it is very hard to do from a call centre elsewhere. To exploit their skills would be the right thing to do; to dismiss the skills and the people and throw them on the scrapheap is the wrong thing to do.
It is ludicrous for such a massive change to be made without any public or parliamentary consultation. The Minister has an opportunity to look again at this proposal. From around the Chamber he has heard, and will continue to hear, the stories of people who have devoted themselves to making HMRC work. There are still huge challenges ahead for HMRC. It is time to halt the plans and do something different: something that values the people working in the service, values the collection of revenue, and makes sure that the decision made is sensible for the people of Scotland and all the nations of the UK.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
First, it is nice to see the Treasury Minister on the Front Bench. It is a shame, however, that he did not feel it was necessary to come to the House of his own accord to account for his unprecedented reorganisation of HMRC. I congratulate the Scottish National party on securing this important debate.
One issue that has not been covered so far is that of HMRC staff in lower bands who rely on tax credits to supplement their income. To travel from Sheffield to Leeds, as they will have to in future, some employees will receive an excess travel allowance. However, the allowance is tax deductible and could take them over the threshold for tax credits, meaning they lose their entitlement to that lifeline. Is the Minister aware of this issue, and will he look into the specific cases of those on tax credits employed by HMRC who may lose out as a result of this decision?
It is difficult to imagine that in a county such as Yorkshire—the largest in England, in which person could be up to 100 miles from Leeds—there will not be significant disruption for staff and taxpayers alike. What are the enhanced transitional arrangements to deal with HMRC being “rationalised”, in a county of our size, into one regional centre? What steps has the Minister put in place, not just for the tax official in my constituency who will have an 80-mile round commute—way beyond the one-hour suggested guideline—but for the small business owner living in Grimsby who wants face-to-face tax advice and will now face a 150-mile round trip for the privilege? The Minister and I both know it is unlikely that that person would make that trip. As a result, individuals will continue to be overpaid or underpaid, wasting HMRC’s time. In the past year for which figures are available, mistakes in the calculation of pay-as-you-earn led to almost 5 million people being mistakenly overpaid or underpaid. Almost a quarter of all tax investigations remain open more than 12 months later, and 3,800 are open over three years after being opened.
These issues are not new to the Government. In 2011, the Select Committee on the Treasury found that there were
“Unacceptable difficulties contacting HMRC by phone”;
it recommended that HMRC improve the service at contact centres, and the better targeting of letters that threaten serious consequences against individuals. That recommendation is particularly relevant. Many hon. Members have constituents who will have been contacted recently by the US multinational Concentrix, a company contracted by HMRC to handle some of its functions relating to tax credits. The performance of Concentrix has been little short of abysmal. A report by the National Audit Office in July revealed that the £75 million contract has resulted in savings of just £500,000—somewhat short of the £285 million that was projected. Tax credit recipients are bearing the brunt of the failing contract; tax credits have been wrongly stopped by Concentrix, and people have simply been unable to get in touch with it, leading to serious financial hardship.
In response to the same Select Committee report, the Government said that
“HMRC conducts full reviews before any changes are made to the opening hours of its face to face enquiry centres. The recently introduced changes”—
in 2011—
“in opening hours were made only after extensive public consultation, including a full equality impact review.”
They also said that the physical presence of HMRC is based on a geographical picture of the areas of higher tax risk across the country. In this unprecedented reorganisation, however, there has been no public consultation. The new offices’ locations have been based not on a picture of tax risk, but instead on wherever is most convenient to the Government in each region. I hope the Minister will correct me on this assumption and answer some of my questions. More broadly, the Opposition hope that the Government will recognise that the closures are the falsest of false economies, and will serve only to reduce tax take and damage further the relationship between HMRC and the businesses that sustain our economy.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I congratulate the SNP on securing this debate. Attempts were made to get it on the Order Paper earlier, but important worldwide events obviously squeezed it out.
I also congratulate the Government on having, in one fell swoop, cheesed off every region and nation of the UK. Some 300 workers in Middlesbrough and 400 in Stockton South, the constituency represented by the northern powerhouse Minister, will be affected by these closures. The Middlesbrough and Stockton offices will close in 2018 and 2019. This follows the loss of 2,200 jobs at Sahaviriya Steel Industries, as well as of 1,000 contractor jobs and more than 6,000 in the supply chain. We also had 800 workers sent home when construction stopped at Air Products and, on the same day this announcement was snuck out, 700 redundancies at the Boulby potash mine. I have never known such a tidal wave of job losses, and for the Government to rub salt into Teesside’s wound at this time shows a callous disregard for the fortunes of Teessiders.
Chris Stephens
I extend the solidarity of my constituents to those of the hon. Gentleman. This is an insult to his constituency, given the pressures it is already under. Is it not extraordinary to hear Government Members say that this is about modernisation and people filling out tax returns online, given we were told only a fortnight ago that a trade union member could not use online balloting?
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is interesting how that rationale is adopted for certain arguments, but not universally spread.
It was a disgrace how the announcement was made. It was not made at the Dispatch Box by a Minister answerable to Members, but was snuck out on the internet during the recess. It was disrespectful to the people losing their jobs and to the House. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. I rang the chief executive and said, “What on earth are you playing at?”, and I asked whether a socioeconomic assessment had been done. The Minister is not interested in the impact on people’s lives, but Opposition Members are. I am sick to death of hearing Government Members say, “I feel your pain,” and “We’re doing everything to help.” I was told that about Teesside staff. Well, it is a funny way to look after staff—to say, “By the way, your job’s going.” It is ridiculous.
Ministers say that more than half of staff will retire in situ, so that is okay: they will not suffer because they can stay until they retire. Those jobs will disappear. There will be no continuity or benefit for future generations. Every time we have this consolidation in the north-east of England, it is always Teesside that loses out, and the jobs go north. On this occasion, we are talking, in the first instance, about consolidation at Waterview Park in Sunderland. It is only 30 miles away, but it is two hours 25 minutes by bus. It will add five hours to people’s working day. How on earth will people go to their school open evenings, attend to their elderly parents, or run the girl guides, or whatever it might be? What sort of quality of life is that? There is never any regard for these things.
These jobs will not come back, and there is no way people can maintain a decent pattern of life. This will simply mean more pain for Teesside. The Government must stop these closures, on which there has been no proper consultation, and use the comprehensive spending review tomorrow to provide targeted assistance to help Teesside attract the high-quality, well-paid work that is so urgently needed.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
It is clear today that the Government have simply failed to make the case for these changes. They have failed to make the case in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. Here, there are just a few loyal, new Tory MPs keen to curry favour by saying what a wonderful thing the proposal is, alongside some hard-working constituency MPs who have talked about the damage that it will do to their constituency—all credit to them for doing so.
More importantly, the Government have not made the case for these changes to the 8,000 staff who will lose their jobs and their livelihoods, or to the many businesses, particularly the small and medium-sized enterprises that are the so-called lifeblood of our economy, that are deeply concerned about the changes. The Government have not even made the case to the chartered accountants who deal with the tax offices and do such a good job to ensure that tax affairs are in order.
HMRC has failed to provide an acceptable service level to customers. We know that from the Public Accounts Committee report earlier this year, which pointed out that it takes an average of 14 minutes and 22 seconds to answer a call. We should think about what that means to a hard-working chartered accountant or a small business. Sometimes these people have a great need for advice about the future of their business. How can the Government possibly argue that cutting 8,000 jobs will make this poor performance, which is already not good enough, any better?
One Conservative Member said that there are many things that humans cannot do, but if we speak to these small businesses and chartered accountants, we find that what they think is lacking is the ability to talk to people when they need advice because they are not sure of something. Things are already not good enough, so getting rid of more people with local knowledge who are able to assist and advise is simply madness. In this case, humans are essential, and it is short-sighted thinking to deny it.
My constituent Stephen Oliver, a chartered accountant, is one such person who has advised people in my constituency. He has been telling me for years about the inadequacies of dealing with the tax office. He is one of the many people who are deeply concerned that these changes will make the situation worse. There is widespread opposition from the accountancy sector—surely something that this Government should take seriously, but currently do not. These entrepreneurs and SMEs are people who not only contribute to the economy, but want to stay on the right side of the law. They want to fulfil their tax obligations and contribute to society. Can Ministers confirm that they have done an analysis of the cost to the economy? There will be such a cost arising from lost productivity as a result of the increases in the time taken to answer the phone.
Finally, in the limited time available, let me say that in response to my written questions on how many staff will be reassigned from individual offices to regional centres, Ministers have confirmed that that has not yet been finalised. In my constituency, Peter Bennett house in West Park is being closed, which is regrettable for the employees. Will Ministers confirm that this move will be planned in such a way that it will have the least impact on staff and their families? That is something that they have not yet done. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, the Government have not made the case in any of the four nations. They really should think again and properly consult all those affected.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I align myself with comments made by Members across the House, and particularly those from my region, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who made a persuasive and common-sense argument that I want to build on.
In reply to my question last week about HMRC and about meeting Bradford MPs, the Prime Minister’s response was welcome, and I appreciate the opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss my concerns. However, the second part of the Prime Minister’s response was, quite frankly, unacceptable. His reply with statistics about the falling claimant count in Bradford completely misses the point. In any case, the count is falling in Bradford not because we suddenly have lots of a good new jobs, but because of sanctions, dubious self-employment and low-wage zero-hour contracts. We need a proper industrial strategy that will address that shortfall, and will help to bring high-quality, well-paid jobs to the city.
The decision to close HMRC offices in Bradford will mean the loss of more than 2,000 jobs which are precisely the type of jobs that we need. Regardless of the number of jobs that are transferred, that will have a devastating effect on our local economy.
Andy McDonald
Does my hon. Friend agree with what was said by his near neighbour the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about the costs that will be incurred by the transfer of the service to Leeds, an area with significantly higher rental values, to a property that does not exist? How on earth will that save money? Does my hon. Friend agree that this is just a false argument?
Imran Hussain
I entirely agree. As I said in an intervention, this decision has been ill thought out, and no economic or social case has been made against Bradford and the surrounding region. The decision has come as something of a hammer blow to Bradford, as there is a clear case for siting the office there: a case that makes clear the positive reasons for doing so, as well as the danger of a negative economic impact if work is pulled out of the city. We have a talented and young workforce who are crying out for opportunities such as this, and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Shipley, we have an identified site next door to the transport interchange. As well as being close to four top universities, we have the internationally renowned Bradford University School of Management.
Nor can I find any good reason for moving the entire operation to Leeds. The Public and Commercial Services Union—the civil servants’ union—has already complained about the lack of consultation and the fact that no one has had a chance to see, let alone scrutinise, the figures that have been used to come up with this plan.
Philip Davies
Is there not every indication that Leeds does not want the hub to be based there, because it could attract private sector investment to any of the sites involved? Have the Government not effectively, and unnecessarily, crowded out private sector investment in Leeds?
Imran Hussain
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. This could have a detrimental effect on Leeds, and on the private sector in particular.
As I stand here representing Bradford, let me make clear my demand to see the figures and the argument for the move to Leeds. Such an important decision must be made openly, and in the full glare of public scrutiny, if we are to be persuaded that the move is not taking place for the convenience of London-based civil servants. Bradford has struggled for years to overcome the effects of de-industrialisation, and has had to tackle many problems. If HMRC relocated to Bradford, it would be a great help and a step on the road to the city’s way forward. It is just starting to show signs of recovery and a return of confidence, but the removal of these jobs will be a bitter blow.
I urge the Government to ask HMRC to reconsider its decision and look seriously at the compelling case for Bradford, and I ask them to be bold enough to change their minds.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
The debate has been very enlightening, and I thank every Member who has participated in it. I was going to begin by saying that the House was clearly divided on the matter, but I shall have to change that to “clearly not divided”, given the many fine contributions that we have heard from Conservative Members.
I was reminded that, many years ago, a sociologist called Georg Simmel had said that the most worrying thing was not people debating or arguing, because at least they were motivated enough to address the issue in question; the biggest problem arose, he said, when there was apathy and people did not participate. We have heard some tremendous contributions today, and witnessed some tremendous engagement. There is certainly no apathy in the House of Commons when it comes to this important issue. I remain of the view that the UK Government have made a serious error with their closure plans, and I think that the majority of those who have contributed to the debate would agree with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) pointed out that although some £34 billion was being lost through inefficient tax collection, the Government’s great idea was to close offices and make redundant the very staff we need to collect those taxes. She shone a light on a range of shortcomings in the Government’s plans, including the scale of office and personnel cuts.
In my summing up, I want to refer to everyone who has made a contribution today, as all the contributions have been important. I shall start with the Minister, who, with his usual calm and attempted reason, gave us a fine tour de force. I would like to pick him up on one or two points, however. I was particularly aggrieved when he used the Scottish Government as an example, saying, “Look at what they have done by bringing all those colleges together”, as though that were an example of the downsizing of an entire estate in Scotland. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me give the Minister an example. There is now only one college in Ayrshire—Ayrshire college—but it retains not only its Ayrshire college campus but the campus that was James Watt college in Kilwinning. It has also retained the campus that was Kilmarnock college, and the Scottish Government are now investing £50 million to expand that campus.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I have met representatives of businesses in Ayrshire, and they have been nothing but complimentary about the courses at Ayrshire college and the students that come out of it. The college has just won three categories in the Scottish Qualifications Authority awards last week.
Roger Mullin
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There are many hon. Members on these Benches who could say similar things about their colleges and the way in which they are served.
The Minister claimed that part of the reason for the proposed changes was to create greater efficiency. Well, that would be clever! As many Members have said, we currently have a rather inefficient way of gathering taxes. There are telephone calls that cannot be answered and letters that sometimes cannot even be opened, let alone responded to, yet the way we are supposed to solve this problem is to cut, cut and cut again. That does not make any sense.
The Minister also indicated that some of the closures would happen in such a way that it would be viable for the people affected to move from their current location to a new one.
Roger Mullin
My hon. Friend has just stolen my line. I was about to say, “Try that in Aberdeen.”
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
I might add, “Try that in Enniskillen.” People would have to go to Belfast, or even perhaps even across the Irish sea to Glasgow.
Roger Mullin
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. I know Enniskillen and many other places in Northern Ireland very well. I am sure he would agree that many people, particularly in communities on the fringes near the border, might feel vulnerable and fear having to go to the big city of Belfast to have their needs met. A number of Members from Northern Ireland have pointed out the specialist nature of the needs of people there, because of cross-border issues and the like.
I have happily crossed swords with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) on a number of occasions. He made one of his typically thoughtful and detailed speeches, and we are grateful for that. He will forgive me if I cannot cover all the points he made, but one thing that struck me about his contribution was his comment that of course there is a need to have new technology and the best new ways of working, but that does not mean we need to deny the right of people to have human contact and get advice and guidance that can be provided only by human beings. We are not luddites opposing the Government—
Roger Mullin
Or robots. We are people who want to see a balanced way of providing a service to the people in this important area. The hon. Gentleman also talked about things he has rehearsed in other places, such as the problems of the tax gap and the great need to have people with real expertise to tackle different forms of tax evasion. He gave many helpful quotes from many different professional groups that are with us in opposing what the Government are planning.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) gave an especially fine analysis of the situation in his local area. I particularly enjoyed his comment that HMRC was proposing a cack-handed approach to finding locations to site its offices. He provided a compelling critique of the regional positioning that is taking place, and I thank him for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) pointed out that his city, undergoing a £1 billion expansion in so many ways, is now to be denied a tax centre for the many thriving and developing small businesses and individuals in that great city of Dundee—what a ridiculous proposition. He also said that the Scottish Government have a policy of “no compulsory redundancies”, but we have not heard those words trip off the tongue of any Minister in this debate.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) focused well on the issues of customer service that need addressing, giving a balanced critique of the Government yet cleverly still finding some areas to support—I pay tribute to her for being so adept at that. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) gave a fine, reasoned analysis, particularly of the human contact needed and the disrespect that has been shown in the way in which this announcement has been given to the public. He was the first to raise that point, but he will doubtless realise it was mirrored in what was said in many subsequent contributions. I want the Government to say something about that in a contrite manner when we hear from them shortly. Like others, the hon. Gentleman raised the need for impact assessments, including equality impact assessments. I have found no effective assessment of any sort connected with this major initiative, and that is completely ridiculous.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) made another compelling case about location, even if it was surprisingly positive about the economic strategy being pursued by the Government. In the context of this debate, I will dwell on the fact that he, too, lent his voice to the critique that even people who believed in this type of policy would not choose the locations that have been chosen to enact it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) pointed out how the significant, large and well-respected tax office in Cumbernauld is to be thrown to the wind, along with so many other offices in Scotland. He called, as have others, for much greater scrutiny of the Government’s proposals in this regard.
The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) offered a paean to her Government, claiming that they were pursuing a policy of common sense, yet she, too, still managed to give a critique of the locations being chosen by the Government. Listening to almost all the contributions from Tory Members, it appears that they liked the policy but just did not agree with any one of the locations that have been chosen to enact it.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) talked about the appalling way in which this matter has been announced and pursued. He said that it showed disrespect to the House. I particularly liked his deep analysis of the situation, when he said “They don’t know their backside from their elbow.”
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) gave the most loyal of speeches, but I have to say that I disagreed with almost every word of it. I could steal a line from someone else and say, “He had all the right words, but just in the wrong order.”
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) mentioned the importance of the Welsh language and the need for an impact assessment. Something that was missing was the lack of concern about what is happening in the highlands and islands and the Gaelic-speaking communities in Scotland. We need to have proper impact analysis and proper care for the people in our communities.
The hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) called for effective care and support for the workers involved, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who made that point in at least six interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) pointed out the way in which three offices in her constituency are again being cast to the winds without any real and effective consideration. [Interruption.] I think that I am being encouraged to wind up.
Let me quickly mention the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) were all stunning in their analysis.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
I am not quite sure how to follow the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin).
Protecting the country’s tax revenues is of course a vital part of our long-term economic plan. It is particularly important given the contributions that we expect the tax system to make to delivering an overall surplus in 2019-20. As an integral part of that, we strengthened HM Revenue and Customs’ ability to carry out its job as effectively and as efficiently as possible.
In 2009-10, the tax gap stood at 7.3%. By 2013-14, it had fallen to 6.4%, and that represents an additional £14.5 billion in cumulative tax collected. Over the past Parliament, HMRC has secured around £100 billion in additional compliance yield, including more than £38 billion from big businesses and £1.2 billion from the UK’s richest 6,000 people. Our investments, including £800 million in the summer Budget, helping HMRC to recover an additional £7.2 billion, have been vital to achieving that success. As well as that, it is clearly important that the structure and organisation of HMRC are fully fit for the 21st century, and that is what these changes are all about.
Damian Hinds
I will not just at the moment, if that is all right with my hon. Friend.
The primary objective is for HMRC to bring its workforce closer together in regional centres so that they can collaborate better, providing more opportunities for economies of scale and of scope and for individuals’ career progression. That will allow them to deliver higher quality public services at a lower cost to the taxpayer. It is simply not efficient to have HMRC’s 58,000 employees spread throughout 170 offices across the UK.
Andy McDonald
While the Minister is on the subject, does he want to tell the House what assessment he has made in socio-economic terms of the damage that will be caused by those tax offices and workers withdrawing from those very communities?
Damian Hinds
As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, this is about moving into more efficient and more effective regional centres in which, in those places, jobs will be created. The great majority of people are within travel time of those centres and will be able to move.
Damian Hinds
I will not for the moment. I want to see how things go and to try to cover as many as possible of the points that have been raised during the debate.
The consolidation has been ongoing since the formation of HMRC in 2005, when it had more than 570 offices. Most recently, in 2014, it announced the closure of 135 older-style walk-in centres, to which vulnerable customers had to make the effort to travel. HMRC replaced them with a dedicated “needs extra support” service, whereby officials go to meet the customers in their own home or at a convenient location. I have met and spoken to HMRC staff who have made the change from the old service model to the new one, and have heard about how much more effective it is in supporting those who need most help.
Damian Hinds
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way.
Keeping HMRC’s valued employees fully engaged has been a central part of the transformation programme. The proposals were initially announced internally 18 months ago. Since then, HMRC has held about 2,000 events across the country, talking to and consulting colleagues on the changes.
Philip Davies
This is a really lazy reorganisation by HMRC, which appears to have picked either the biggest place in a region or the one that is easiest for the London staff to get to by train. Will the Exchequer Secretary consider what has been said in this debate and go away and look at the issues from a properly local perspective?
Damian Hinds
I assure my hon. Friend that that is not the way in which the process to identify the locations has been conducted. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary mentioned earlier the combination of site and location-specific criteria. Critically, the process has also involved mapping out where HMRC staff live, in order to calculate reasonable travel distances and the locations to which those individuals can reasonably travel. In the case of HMRC staff employed in Leeds and Bradford, 130 live a more reasonable distance from Leeds than they do from Bradford.
Peter Dowd
What does the Exchequer Secretary have to say to my constituents who have been connected to the civil service for half a century? What does he have to say to the town that will be devastated when those 2,500 jobs move out?
Damian Hinds
There are a great number of job opportunities in Liverpool, near the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. This will be a different type of operation, with more disciplines co-located in the same building, so there will be more opportunities for collaborative and efficient working and for career progression and development. Everyone working for HMRC will have the opportunity to discuss their personal circumstances with their manager ahead of any office closures or moves, including any issues that need to be taken into account when making decisions.
Damian Hinds
Not at the moment. As I have said, HMRC has mapped the geographical location of all of its employees, to work out which locations work best for most people. We envisage that the new office structure will give more people more opportunities, which is good for them as well as for the organisations as a whole.
I have not given way as much as I might have done, because I wanted to respond to as many as possible of the points that have been raised during the debate. The questions were many and the minutes available are few, but I shall do my best. If I omit anything crucial that has been raised, I will write to the hon. Member concerned.
The official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), rightly raised the question of the Mapeley leases. It is precisely because of the expiration date of those leases, which account for about two thirds of the estate, at the end of the private finance initiative contract in 2021 that this is a one-off opportunity to make this change to the estate footprint. If the opportunity is missed, there will not be another one like it for some 15 years.
I have been asked a number of times, quite rightly, about the number of compulsory redundancies. Of 58,000 staff in total, 4,000 are expected not to be in reasonable travel time of a regional centre, but that is not the same as saying that there will be 4,000 compulsory redundancies. Every year, many people retire or move away from organisations, including HMRC.
Damian Hinds
I will in a moment come to the point that the hon. Gentleman is shouting out from his seat. The average age of employees in the organisation is late 40s or early 50s, and this is a 10-year plan, so compulsory redundancy should be a last resort.
What counts as reasonable travel time will depend on the circumstances of the individual and will include consideration of factors such as caring responsibilities, which is one reason for providing the opportunity of one-to-one discussions, quite rightly, with all employees. Typically, reasonable travel time is taken to mean around an hour, but that does not mean that that is correct for everybody in every circumstance in every location.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd), my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas), complained about the manner in which the announcement came out. I make no apology for the fact that the staff were told first. On the day of the announcement, the entire HMRC senior team was out in the field at those office locations to carry out face-to-face discussions with staff. The direction of travel had been shared with staff 18 months earlier, and in the intervening time some 2,000 events had been held up and down the country to discuss the changes. In terms of contact with MPs, I can confirm that HMRC will be happy to discuss the situation with them.
Damian Hinds
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, because of the time.
I want to respond to the specific points that hon. Members have rightly raised about their constituencies. On Shipley and Bradford, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has agreed to meet Bradford MPs, as they know. The chief executives of HMRC and of Bradford’s local authority are also due to meet to discuss the issue. We have heard about Chatham and Chelmsford. I should explain that they are both two-stage programmes with a transitional arrangement in place for three or four years at Maidstone and Southend respectively. The hon. Member for Bootle raised the question of not knowing exactly where in Liverpool the regional centre would be. This programme stretches over a number of years, and it is right that as an organisation goes into a commercial negotiation over premises, it does not identify the exact location it has in mind because, as was mentioned in the debate, that would put up the price that was asked.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) that HMRC is very conscious of the importance of the Welsh language service and intends there to be no denigration of service to Welsh speakers as a result of these changes. I want also to reassure colleagues from Northern Ireland that we expect the number of staff in Northern Ireland to go up at the end of this period, rather than down. HMRC absolutely recognises the unique issues in the Province.
The Scotland-specific proposals will see the opening of two regional centres, in Glasgow and Edinburgh. In addition, a specialist crime centre will be maintained in Gartcosh. Although discussions with individual employees are ongoing, HMRC’s presence in Scotland will remain consistent, at 12% of its total workforce as against only 8% of the UK’s population. To respond to the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), the 600 jobs at Sidlaw House will move to the Department for Work and Pensions, while we will do everything to find alternative options working one-to-one with those at Caledonian House who are outside reasonable travel times for the new regional centre.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you are aware that cinema distributors in this country have refused to carry an advertisement for the Lord’s prayer by the Church of England, despite the fact that it has been approved by the British Board of Film Classification and by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. What action do you think I might take to draw this to the attention of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who might do something about this fundamental attack on free speech?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a point of order, but the good thing is that you have raised it on the Floor of the House, it is now on the record, and I am sure that, quite rightly, people will look at it closely. I hope that at some point people will come back to you on the point you raise.
Iran: Nuclear Issues
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the following unnumbered European Union Documents concerning restrictive measures against Iran: a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1050 of 30 June 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1099 of 7 July 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1130 of 10 July 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1148 of 14 July 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1336 of 31 July 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1327 of 31 July 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1337 of 31 July 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1328 of 31 July 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1863 of 18 October 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1861 of 18 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012, and a Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1862 of 18 October 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012; supports the Government’s view that, had the suspension of certain EU restrictive measures against Iran not been extended in the final stages of negotiations, the prospects for reaching an agreement would have been significantly diminished; and agrees that the amendments to EU legislation to meet the obligations set out in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action contribute to ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful.
Over four months have passed since the E3+3 and Iran reached agreement on the joint comprehensive plan of action and the historic deal that now imposes strict limits and inspections on Iran’s nuclear programme. During that time, there have been a number of important developments. In recent weeks, crucial steps have been taken to begin implementation of the agreement. Earlier, in the summer, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary marked another diplomatic breakthrough with Iran when he travelled to Tehran to reopen our embassy there. This is therefore a welcome opportunity to discuss the nuclear agreement with Iran. I am grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for its recommendation that the House debate these matters and for its work in examining the many EU measures that relate to the negotiation and implementation of the deal.
The past few months have not been easy. The review processes in Washington and Tehran saw tough and impassioned debate. Opponents of the deal, on all sides, will continue to challenge it.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Has Washington actually approved the deal—by “Washington”, I mean the Senate and Congress?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If I may, I will come on to the developments in the region and the wider E3+3 context later.
Crucially, we remain on track for successful implementation. The deal was adopted as planned on 18 October. Adoption day was an important landmark. It means that the deal is now in force and Iran is beginning to take the required steps to limit its nuclear programme. We are therefore on track towards implementation day.
Let us be in no doubt about the significance of successful implementation. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would constitute a major threat to national, regional and global security. Full implementation of the agreement will remove that threat. Iran will grant the International Atomic Energy Agency unprecedented access so that it can verify compliance with the strict limits placed on Iran’s nuclear programme. Those limits mean that Iran’s break-out time to acquiring sufficient fissile material for a weapon will be at least one year for at least 10 years.
The UK, along with its E3+3 partners, played a crucial role in more than a decade of negotiations to resolve this most challenging of issues. The UK is committed to playing its part in ensuring that a nuclear weapon will remain beyond Iran’s reach. I hope that the Government continue to enjoy support from both sides of the House in our efforts.
In recommending that this debate be held, the European Scrutiny Committee referred a number of different documents to the House. Given the time constraints, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I give only a general description of them. Broadly speaking, they fall into three different categories. I will give an overview of each in turn.
When, in November 2014, the E3+3 and Iran agreed to continue negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme, the interim agreement—the joint comprehensive plan of action—was extended until 30 June 2015. This provided for the continuation of voluntary measures by Iran to freeze the most concerning aspects of its nuclear programme in exchange for limited US and EU sanctions relief. As the negotiations reached the end game, all parties felt that an agreement was indeed within reach, but was unlikely to be secured by the 30 June deadline. As such, the first group of documents extended the suspension of EU sanctions for a few days at a time, as the negotiations edged towards the key date of 14 July. I cannot stress enough how sensitive the negotiations were at that stage. Had the limited sanctions relief lapsed, the prospects for keeping Iran at the negotiating table would have diminished, if not disappeared completely.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Did the sensitivity of the circumstances that the Minister describes lead to the delay in debating this matter, given that so much time has since passed?
Mr Ellwood
There were of course delays, but, as I have articulated, had we not taken the measures, and introduced and pursued the documents we are now discussing, we would not have kept Iran at the negotiating table, which it was important to do to get the result we now have.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am not entirely clear about my hon. Friend’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Were there sensitivities prior to the agreement on 14 July, or did they come afterwards and therefore contribute to the delay in having the debate in this House?
Mr Ellwood
I do not believe that there was a delay in debating the matter in this House. I am delighted to be here today. I will certainly look at the detail of the point that my hon. Friend raises. I am articulating why there were delays and, indeed, extensions in the discussions and in the requirements for the documents to be in place in order to secure agreement with Iran.
Following the agreement of the joint comprehensive plan of action on 14 July, the second set of documents extended the limited sanctions relief, this time for a longer period. That created a window to allow Iran to take the required steps to limit its nuclear programme and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to confirm that those steps had been taken ahead of full sanctions relief. Had the limited sanctions relief not been extended, the incentive for Iran to complete those actions would have been greatly diminished.
The final set of documents deals with the crucial matter of the implementation of EU commitments under the deal by providing the legal framework for the termination of the nuclear-related economic and financial EU sanctions on Iran. Those measures were passed on adoption day, 18 October, as was required by the joint comprehensive plan of action. In adopting those measures, we and our partners demonstrated our intention to honour our commitments fully and in good faith. Iran still has plenty of work to do to live up to its commitments. That is why the sanctions relief will come into effect only on implementation day, when the IAEA verifies that Iran has completed the crucial steps in its nuclear programme.
To conclude, I will emphasise three crucial points that are illustrated by the documents and their adoption. First, the documents highlight the importance of close engagement with our diplomatic partners. The success of the negotiations was based on strong co-operation among the E3+3. Maintaining the pressure and the effect of EU sanctions was vital to bring Iran to the negotiating table. That required the co-operation of all 28 member states. The smooth implementation of the agreement and robust enforcement of the sanctions that remain in place will require a similarly united effort in the coming months and years.
Secondly, by providing the opportunity, through sanctions relief, for Iran to re-engage with the world economically, this deal and these documents are allowing the Iranian people to feel the tangible benefits of international co-operation.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The point that the Minister is making is a strong one. Although the deal focuses on nuclear issues, it sets a framework for bringing up other issues that we have concerns about in Iran, not least the continuing persecution of Christians.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Yes, Iran has come to the table and we have an agreement in place. That allows us to have a dialogue, through the opening of our embassy and so forth, with a country that has a long way to go on human rights, the introduction of justice systems and so forth. The strength of our relationship will allow us to be far more frank on the issues that he rightly raises.
There are opportunities for the United Kingdom. The Government are determined that British businesses should be well placed to benefit when the sanctions are lifted. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Trade and Investment have visited Tehran with UK delegations that included representatives of the engineering, infrastructure, banking and oil and gas sectors. Together, they are beginning to build the crucial links that will allow British businesses to take advantage of the opportunities in Iran.
Finally, the documents show that we are ready to implement the deal fully and robustly. As we enter the implementation process, our aim will be same as it was throughout the negotiations: to give the international community confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is and will remain exclusively peaceful. That is why we could accept a deal only if it shut off all possible routes to an Iranian bomb, and why the sanctions relief will not take effect until the IAEA verifies that Iran has taken the agreed steps to limit its nuclear programme.
Mr Jim Cunningham
To return to my original question, has the American Senate gone along with this agreement? I am sure the Minister remembers that the Republican party was not that happy about the deal.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman is right. There were extensive negotiations in America and concerns were raised, as they were in this House, but I understand that the Senate has now confirmed American support for this deal.
Mr Ellwood
In conclusion, the IAEA will have unprecedented access to verify that Iran continues to honour its obligations. The Government were grateful for support that they received from across the House throughout the negotiation process. As our attention turns towards a robust interpretation of this historic agreement, we look forward to enjoying similar support as we ensure that the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb never materialises.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The nuclear deal that was agreed in July between the E3+3 and Iran was the culmination of many years of intense diplomatic efforts. At its heart is a simple concept, but it nevertheless took a huge amount of work to reach a robust and verifiable agreement. The simple concept is that Iran will desist from its efforts to develop a nuclear weapon in exchange for the lifting of sanctions that have had a major impact on its economy over many years.
I pay tribute to the efforts of all those involved in those intense diplomatic efforts, and particularly Baroness Ashton of Upholland who played such an important role during her five years as the EU’s High Representative for foreign affairs, and Jack Straw who was important in getting the process started and who remained an unstinting supporter of it during the last Parliament. Such diplomacy is not easy. Trust was in short supply, for understandable reasons, and there were—and remain—many who said that the deal could not work. Agreement is one thing, but its implementation matters even more.
The European Union played an important co-ordinating role in the talks, and all parties have testified to the value and importance of that role. The agreement is a good example of what can be achieved when the UK works with others and uses the EU to increase its leverage when patient but determined diplomacy is used. There must have been many times when it all seemed too difficult, but the thing that concentrated the minds of negotiators—this should also give pause for thought to critics of the deal—was the consequence of having no deal or of allowing negotiations to fail. What would that have meant for nuclear proliferation? What would it have meant for the middle east or for other situations—such as those now at the forefront of our minds—in which Iran is involved, if we did not have the increase in trust that has come about as a result of this agreement? That does not mean that all our issues with Iran are over, but the agreement has helped to build trust. If it is implemented properly, that trust will increase.
This debate focuses on how the sanctions regime is to be lifted, and on the snapback mechanism incorporated into the deal should it be judged that Iran is not implementing its commitments properly. The lifting of sanctions is linked to the implementation of the agreement, and that must be verified by the IAEA. A positive report by that agency will trigger the lifting of sanctions. The Deputy for Legal and International Affairs at Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Abbas Araghchi, told reporters in Vienna in the last couple of days that he expects the deal to be implemented in January next year. That follows approval of the deal by the Iranian Parliament last month. We welcome that aim. It shows momentum behind the agreement, although it will, of course, be important that the claim of implementation is properly tested and verified by the IAEA.
The European Union has already begun preparing for the lifting of sanctions. Last month the EU High Representative, Ms Mogherini, said that the EU had
“adopted the legislative framework for the lifting of all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions”.
That decision will, of course, only take effect when the agreement is implemented. The Government, in keeping to this timetable, exercised an override of the normal scrutiny procedures on some of the measures. That is never ideal, but in the circumstances, given the combined international efforts to get the deal implemented, I believe it is understandable. For our part—the Minister put the question to me—we remain supporters of the agreement as long as it is fully and properly implemented, and as long as the IAEA is given full and proper access to all the facilities it needs to inspect to satisfy the international community that both the spirit and the letter of the agreement are being adhered to.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The European Scrutiny Committee did not object to the scrutiny override in these circumstances. Its objection has been to the delay in scheduling this debate, which was asked for in September. Here we are in November and we have finally got it. It is the slowness that is the source of complaint.
Mr McFadden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will know the point he raises is something of a recurring theme in examining these issues. It is good that he clarifies that it is not the override that was objected to. I am glad he agrees with me that, while it is never ideal when dealing with something like this, it is sometimes understandable.
In conclusion, at a time when there are many grave international issues before us, this diplomatic achievement should give us cause for some cautious hope and optimism. I appreciate that some have doubts and some still lack trust in this, but the best way to answer those doubts is to have a full, proper and strictly verified implementation of the deal. If we have that, we can move forward both to progress on non-proliferation and to the building of trust that can be of wider benefit in the region.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am sorry the Minister thought it unnecessary to give way to me towards the end of his speech. I always take these things in good part, but I did want to ask him a question.
There is an enormous crisis in the middle east, with ISIS/Daesh and the other factors at play—not to mention the Russians—and the interaction between all that and the peace and stability we all earnestly wish for. The reality is that this kind of document—in fact, it is not just one document; I have counted them and I think there are 14 in all—and the deal being done must have some bearing on the current situation. It would be unthinkable that there would not be such interaction at a diplomatic level, given the importance of Iran in the whole middle east crisis we are experiencing at the moment—all the documents, the involvement of the United Nations Security Council, which endorsed it on 20 July, and the interaction with not only our own Prime Minister but the President of France and Chancellor Merkel, who put out a statement in September 2015. That is not unimportant to say the least in relation to the events taking place at this time.
My main message is this: given the importance of the diplomatic interaction, and bearing in mind the fact the matter relates to nuclear issues and potential nuclear threats and their relationship to Israel, not to debate this subject at the right time really did not give the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss it when it really should have been discussed. That is the main point I want to make. I am so grateful that the Minister has now decided to come to the Dispatch Box.
Mr Ellwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in allowing me to intervene, despite my being discourteous to him, for which I apologise—I thought we were going to go round in circles on the issue of the date. On his first point, as soon as the deal was made, the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House, but given Government business, this was the first date we were given for coming to the House. On the second point, I am pleased that Iran is now participating in the Vienna talks. He is absolutely right that this is the first indication of what I hope will be a more responsible attitude from Iran towards regional security.
Sir William Cash
I do not intend to go into the complexities of the foreign policy implications, because that would warrant a much longer debate and involve not only the Minister for Europe but the Foreign Secretary —with respect to this Minister’s pay grade. This is vital to our security. One needed only to witness the discussions as they unfolded in Switzerland, at which the Foreign Secretary was present, the to-ing and fro-ing and the analysis that was brought to bear to realise the importance of this issue. That was the point I wanted to make about the timing. It is important, when we say a European document is of legal or political importance, that the matter is debated on the Floor of the House in the appropriate manner and at the right time. The UN Security Council voted to adopt resolution 2231 on 20 July, and these documents have been pouring out ever since. There is a more recent document, dated 18 October, which is getting nearer to now, but we are at the end of November. But I have made my point clearly enough.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I know that the hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, agrees that all major European matters, even those which we might eventually agree or give a cautious welcome to, deserve the full scrutiny of the House. As he points out, these documents were considered on 9 September, and the Committee recommended that they be brought to the Floor of the House as soon as possible after the October recess. It is seven weeks later. Has he had an explanation from the Government about why it took so long, and has he been given cause to believe that the remaining 21 scrutiny documents will be brought forward for debate, either here or in Committee, within a reasonable timeframe?
Sir William Cash
This is the first opportunity we have had to put the point about the timing to the Minister. It is because we recommended it for debate that we can raise the question in this context. On the logjam of documents, to which the hon. Gentleman, who sits on my Committee, rightly refers, it is the constant and persistent determination of the Committee to get issues debated as early as possible, as he knows. I will not go down that route now—it is for another occasion—but I take very seriously what he says.
Because this is such a controversial matter, others have made observations on it, and I would like to quote what Roger Boyes, the diplomatic editor of The Times, said on 15 July. The Minister might think that circumstances have improved since then in terms of bringing Iran and Russia nearer to the negotiations and getting a better result in respect of ISIS/Daesh, but I will quote what he said anyway, because it is of some interest. He says:
“There is nothing game-changing about teaming up with a wobbly Iran. The accord with Tehran can then only be judged narrowly as to whether it is a success as a piece of arms control statecraft—and whether the release of sanctioned funds makes Iran more or less menacing. Consider what would happen without a nuclear deal, President Obama said yesterday: no limits on the nuclear programme, on centrifuges, on the plutonium reactor. But the president has to consider this too: how does one maintain leverage on Iran once the sanctions have been lifted? Denied access to a suspicious nuclear site, inspectors will be able to appeal to a joint commission that includes delegates from Iran, Russia and China. Delays are thus built into the verification system and the idea that sanctions can come crashing quickly down again is over-optimistic. Parts of the deal read like a cheater’s charter; there is too much wriggle room.”
I put that forward not in my own name, but because I think it important for the House to hear the views of an experienced diplomatic editor such as Roger Boyes. He continues:
“What happens in ten to 15 years when the deal has run its course, restraints are lifted and a wealthy Iran which has retained its nuclear expertise, which has grown in zealous confidence, decides to remind a small Gulf state who is boss? The deal is an open invitation to Sunni princelings to invest in their own nuclear deterrent. In the meantime Tehran will have the money to throw into the subversion of its neighbours and expand its arms exporting business.”
On the other hand, to illustrate the controversy and importance of all this, Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Tehran who obviously knows a lot about it, argued that there were good reasons to believe that it will stick, including
“the ‘snap-back’ provisions to restore sanctions in the event of violations”
and the fact that
“Iran will not want to risk a military attack, which would grow more likely if the deal fell through; no viable better agreement available and no international support for more sanctions if the US were seen to have vetoed the deal”.
Then there would be an Iran, he says, that
“is tired of being punished for something that it has not intended to do since the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s ban on nuclear weapons, which dates from 2003, the year Saddam Hussein was toppled.”
He goes on to say that Iran
“has recognised that it cannot develop sustainably as a nation without allaying international concerns.”
It also “values its reputation”, and
“reneging on its commitment not to build nuclear weapons, or withdrawing its agreement to the utmost transparency, either during or after the agreed 15-year limits on its enrichment activities”
would
“demolish that reputation, with no appreciable gain to its security because of the retaliation and regional arms race that would follow.”
That just gives an indication and a flavour of the complexity and controversy that lies behind all this.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am glad my hon. Friend has brought this sort of politics into the debate. All this reminds me very much of the darkest days of the cold war, a policy of containment and the fact that the then Soviet Union had different factions—modernisers and hardliners. Can we not hope that a policy of containment in the case of Iran might lead eventually to the emergence of a modernisers’ victory, albeit slowly and perhaps over decades?
Sir William Cash
One must indeed hope so. In the extremely complex and dangerous world that we now inhabit, we must also hope that some sensible diplomatic and useful solution—I would not call it a compromise—can be found.
To conclude my remarks, in September 2015, our own Prime Minister, the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany were saying:
“Iran will have strong incentives not to cheat”—
the opposite, I think, of what Roger Boyes was saying—
“The near certainty of getting caught and the consequences that would follow would make this a losing option.”
The first moment of truth is due to come at the end of this year, which I think the Minister understands very well, when the International Atomic Energy Agency is due to report on whether Iran has fulfilled the commitments that will enable international and thus EU sanctions to be substantially lifted, which is not the same as the fact, as many people seem to think, that they have been lifted already. This is a process, and this is what will transpire towards the end of the year.
Mr Ellwood
I can confirm that, but let me add that we shall have another yardstick to examine in February, when elections will be held for the Majlis, the Iranian Parliament. The type of candidate who will be allowed to stand will give the world the first indication of whether Iran is moving in a new direction. We hope that moderate candidates will step forward and will be allowed to stand, given that they have been denied that opportunity in the past.
Sir William Cash
I remind the House of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). We need to deal with the substance, and that is what the European Scrutiny Committee is there to do. It is there to go beyond the purely textual confusion that can arise from our having to debate a number of different documents—14 of which have not been fully set out—within a fairly limited time span. We need to get to the heart of what this is all about.
I am glad that the Minister said what he said just now. We want to be positive, but we also want to hold him and the Government to account. This is a hugely serious matter, and it is essential for it to be debated in good time. We could have debated it earlier, and, while we understand the position, we regret and deeply deplore the fact that it has not been debated until now.
Given what the Minister has said, I have nothing further to add, other than to express the hope that the Foreign Affairs Committee will note the significance of what is going on here—I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, already does—so we can start to have a proper discussion that it is properly timed, not only in the context of the IAEA and the end of the year, but in the context of the February discussions in Iran to which the Minister referred.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I welcome the debate. It is right for us to have an opportunity to debate the nuclear deal with Iran, and the means of its implementation, on the Floor of the House. I recognise that there have been debates in Westminster Hall, and that the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House following the agreement of the deal back in July, but the European Scrutiny Committee is right to exercise its power to call for serious matters to be brought to the Chamber. I know from my work on the Procedure Committee that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) will continue to push for more opportunities for his Committee’s concerns to be debated here. My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) has expressed similar concerns.
At the same time, I have some sympathy with the Government’s position. I recognise the need to move quickly in response to the Lausanne accord and the subsequent agreement, which was, of course, concluded very shortly before the summer recess.
The Scottish National party has been fully supportive of the joint comprehensive plan of action that was agreed by the E3+3 and Iran. I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) about the considerable amount of work done on that agreement by members of many different parties and Governments. I also agree with him that this was one of the significant achievements of the European Union, and an example of the benefits of co-operation through the EU.
As we have heard, the aim of the deal is to ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful, and Iran has guaranteed that it will never seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. In return, the EU and the US will lift related sanctions. The documents incorporating that sanction relief into European law are the subject of this debate. The SNP hopes and believes that the disarming of Iran will aid long-term stability and peace in the region. Indeed, there is a clear and present need to extend the work that is being done in order to ensure that no country in the region possesses nuclear weapons. During one of the debates in Westminster Hall earlier in the year, I made the point—as others have done—that if Iran can be seen to choose a peaceful path, others in the region could follow suit. We know that the wider middle east region is sorely in need of paths to peace and stability.
We spent a long time today debating the renewal of the UK’s nuclear capability. Weapons of mass destruction are a threat to humanity, regardless of where they are located, so any agreement that works towards non-proliferation and, ultimately, disarmament is to be welcomed.
The Scottish National party supports the lifting of EU sanctions in relation to Iran’s nuclear programme, but we continue to support the retention of the asset freezes and travel bans for human rights violations. In 2014 alone, Iran is believed to have executed over 700 people—many in secret—including children under the age of 18 and political dissenters. This is unacceptable and inhumane. Continued international pressure needs to be brought to bear to protect human rights in that country. However, we welcome the reopening of the UK embassy in Tehran and the work that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has begun in building trade links between the UK and Iran. Re-establishing those formal links will go a great way towards facilitating the process of re-establishing significant trade links between our countries.
The current sanctions regime is extensive and complex, and has clearly and deliberately suppressed trade over the last decades. The sanctions have worked insofar as they have brought Iran to the negotiating table, but their implementation has had an impact on its oil exports and the value of its currency, resulting in lost revenues. When implementation day arrives, the majority of the United Nations Security Council measures will be removed, along with the totality of European Union sanctions, including the embargo on Iranian oil and prohibitions on energy investment. This will present a significant boost to the Iranian economy and open up significant trade and investment opportunities.
However, the SNP believes that, over and above re-establishing trade links, the UK Government need to ensure that cultural, educational and economic links with Iran are strengthened to rebuild our bilateral relationship. This should include work to review the visas available to Iranian students studying at UK higher education institutions and the post-study work visa, as well as making a commitment to grow UK trade with Iran.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) noted on the day of the statement that Iran’s President Rouhani was a distinguished graduate of Glasgow Caledonian University, which is in the constituency neighbouring mine; he received his doctorate in 1999. We pay particular tribute to his role in the thawing of relations between Iran and the west. Dr Rouhani is the President of a young, growing country with huge economic potential, and the removal of sanctions will signify a commitment to peace on all sides. It presents an opportunity to build peace through strong trade, educational and cultural links between the west and Iran. We Scottish National party Members welcome that opportunity and any moves that will take us towards a more just and peaceful world.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Many Members on both sides of the House continue to have concerns about the Iranian nuclear deal. We have debated the issue on several occasions in Westminster Hall, and I remain disappointed that the opportunity to debate the full deal in Government time has never been afforded to the House. Back in June, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said:
“I would certainly ask the Backbench Business Committee to make time for it to be debated on the Floor of the House as well as in Westminster Hall.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 21WH.]
Unfortunately, that has not occurred. The Secretary of State did make a statement to the House in July, but limited time prevented a debate on the merits of agreeing to the deal. I do not intend to open up that discussion again, but I want to ask the Minister to clarify what the Government are seeking to achieve through this evening’s motion, and what the possible impacts might be on the middle east region.
The motion tonight is rather convoluted and requires the casual observer to undertake some research to determine what each of the EU Council decisions and subsequent amendments refer to. In the round, they seek to remove sanctions on transactions regarding foodstuffs, healthcare, medical equipment, equipment for agricultural or humanitarian purposes below €1 million, as well as transfers of personal remittances below €400,000. In addition, the motion is about suspending restrictive measures concerning the prohibition on the provision of insurance, reinsurance and transport for Iranian crude oil; the prohibition on the import, purchase or transport of Iranian petrochemical products and on the provision of related services; and the prohibition on trade in gold and precious metals with the Government of Iran, its public bodies and the Central Bank of Iran, or persons and entities acting on their behalf.
It is fair and rational to ask who will be the main beneficiary of the lifting of these sanctions. Surprisingly, it might not be the Iranian Government themselves but one individual, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, through his direct control of one of the most powerful and secretive organisations in Iran, the Setad Ejraiye Farmane Hazrate Emam, or Setad.
Setad has become one of the most powerful organisations in Iran, although many Iranians, and indeed many in the wider world, know little about it. In the past six years, it has morphed into a business juggernaut that holds stakes in nearly every sector of Iranian industry, including finance, oil, telecommunications, the production of birth-control pills and even ostrich farming. The organisation’s total worth is difficult to pinpoint because of the secrecy of its accounts, but Setad’s holdings of real estate, corporate stakes and other assets total about £60 billion, according to Reuters. That estimate is based on an analysis of statements by Setad officials, data from the Tehran stock exchange and company websites, and information from the US Treasury Department.
The motion seeks to remove secondary sanctions on Setad and about 40 firms it owns or has a stake in, which will have a huge impact on events in the middle east. The de-listing of Setad has no direct connection to Iran’s nuclear programme, but its significance is in the company’s relationship to Iran’s ruling elite. The company has interests in almost every sector of Iran’s economy. It built its corporation on the systematic seizure of thousands of properties belonging to religious minorities, business people and Iranians living abroad—we have seen that in the history. Iranians who said their family properties were seized by Setad described in interviews in 2013 how men showed up and threatened to use violence against them if the owners did not leave the premises at once. Although there may be no evidence that Khamenei is personally enriched by Setad’s assets, it is through Setad that Khamenei has access to resources that allow him to bypass rivals and other branches of government.
The nuclear deal, reached in Vienna in July, allows the conglomerate to open bank accounts abroad and procure financing for partnerships. Secondary sanctions have previously prevented foreign banks that wish to operate in the United States and the UK from dealing with Setad. Although most of Setad’s holdings are in Iran, it has some global reach. The Setad-linked entities being removed from US and UK secondary sanctions include firms based in South Africa and Germany. Already, one Setad firm appears to be moving to take advantage of the changes; the Ghadir Investment Company, which the US Treasury identified as a Setad-linked firm, signed a €500 million contract with the engineering unit of Finmeccanica in Italy, as a spokesman confirmed in August.
The even more troubling aspect of the motion is who operates Setad and the other companies that will benefit from sanctions relief. Some have said that the people of Iran will benefit from that relief, but I disagree. It has been claimed in the media that the Iranian revolutionary guard corps, a branch of Iran’s military accused of funnelling arms and other support to Hezbollah and President Assad of Syria, has placed top commanders at the heart of more than 200 Iranian companies. Backers of the nuclear deal have argued that sanctions relief and renewed access to $150 billion in frozen assets will not benefit the revolutionary guard in its support of terrorist organisations in the region because restrictions remain in place against Hezbollah and Hamas. Such a view is not shared by others, including me.
A US think-tank, the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, says that some 229 Iranian companies have board members or shareholders belonging to the revolutionary guard, which also has links to President Assad. The FDD claims that the revolutionary guard either controls or holds shares in 14 companies listed on the Iranian stock exchange, with a combined economic worth of $17 billion. That is in addition to other companies, such as the construction corporation Khatam al-Anbiya, which has secured more than $20 billion in Government contracts and is believed to be the biggest private-sector company in Iran.
Earlier this month, Barack Obama said that the nuclear deal would result in more funding for the Iranian revolutionary guard, but that the alternative was war. He said:
“We have no illusions about the Iranian government or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organisations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies—including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq.”
We all agree with the words of the Prime Minister in the House only yesterday, when he made the following clear and concise point:
“In ensuring our national security, we will also protect our economic security.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1049.]
He meant here in this country. The Prime Minister is absolutely right that by protecting the United Kingdom’s economic security we can protect our country. It is my belief that by maintaining sanctions on the Iranian economy, we can prevent resources being fed into the conflict in Syria and other countries in the middle east. I urge the Minister tonight to follow the money ansd see where it takes him.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Minister for what he has put forward. In his introduction, he used some terminology that I shall refer to, but I put it on the record that I do so not to attack him, but to illustrate my point.
I have spoken on this matter before, Mr Deputy Speaker, so you will know what issues I wish to address. Interestingly, every Member who has spoken tonight has talked about human rights, and about the persecution of religious minorities in Iran. I have this question: is it not perhaps a wee bit premature to agree to the suspension of sanctions? I wish to make it clear that I am not against the idea of a suspension, but I am against the principle if we have not seen the changes that we want to see.
On whether it is premature to agree to a suspension, I wish to refer specifically to human rights and religious beliefs. Other Members have given some stats on this matter, and it is important that we do so. This year, Iran has put to death almost 800 people—that is compared with 700 people last year—and it could rise to 1,000 by the end of the year. As Members have said, a number of those people, some of whom were children, were executed for their beliefs and some for minor reasons.
May I make a particular plea for the Baha’i faith in Iran? In the past year, 108 Baha’i people have been arrested, and some 200 Baha’i-owned businesses have been shut down or threatened. More than 7,000 pieces of anti-Baha’i propaganda have been disseminated in the Iranian media during this Administration. Whenever I hear about sanctions being weakened, I ask myself where the evidence of change is in Iran when it comes to human rights and those who have a religious belief.
Article 13 of the constitution of Iran denies recognition of the Baha’is as a religious minority in Iran. It strips them of the constitutional protections—such as they are—that are afforded to other religious communities. Baha’is are denied due process and equality before the law, which greatly concerns me. Some 780 incidents of economic persecution against Iranian Baha’is have been documented by the international community, including shop and factory closures. We did not hear that at the world conference that was held in New York in September. There has been the denial or the non-renewal of businesses and licences, and dismissals from private business after the application of Government pressure. Such attacks on those who pursue the Baha’i faith have been almost continuous.
When we consider the reduction of sanctions, I therefore ask where we have seen evidence that we should do that, especially when we consider the human rights abuses and the persecution of members of the Baha’i faith? The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) referred to this as controversial matter, and I believe that he is right, especially when I think about how Christians have been persecuted because of their belief. They have been specifically targeted, and thrown into prison. Some of them are still there despite illness and bad health. The number of Christians in Iran has been reduced by 300,000. Why is that? It is because they have relatives overseas and want to join them. It is because they are persecuted in Iran, and to survive and to worship their God as they wish to do and as they should, they have to leave Iran.
When it comes to the reduction of sanctions, I think about the Christians who have had to leave Iran. They would go back if they could and if they had the right to worship. Christians are discriminated against when it comes to jobs and education. They are abused and kidnapped. Some young girls are put into arranged marriages, and there have been acid attacks on young Christian girls in Iran, which are well documented in this House. Given that evidence, why should we reduce the nuclear sanctions?
Kevin Foster
Like me, the hon. Gentleman is passionate about reducing the persecution of those who profess our shared faith. Does he agree that this is not about removing all sanctions on Iran, but about the start of a process in exchange for a specific agreement on nuclear issues? That will allow a framework for the future and enable us to further engage with Iran and deal with the many issues of domestic policy on which we strongly disagree.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has the same interest as I do in reducing the persecution of Christians and those of all religious beliefs around the world. I have the same passion as you.
Jim Shannon
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I meant the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), although I know you share our interest.
Everyone in this House wants to see change in Iran—how could we not?—but I have to see evidence of changes on human rights. Under article 13 of the constitution of Iran, it is impossible for those of the Baha’i faith and other religious beliefs to enjoy such rights The Minister says that he wants “smooth implementation of the agreement.” I am a friend and supporter of Israel, for many reasons. I am a Christian and believe that Israel is the land of God’s chosen people. That is my opinion and belief. At the same time, I understand that that does not give them the right to do everything they want. I think of Israelis trying to protect themselves. Some of those in Iran who are part of the process of changing the sanctions have said that they want to see the destruction of the state of Israel. That does not mean firing a couple of bombs—it means no Israel. Given such statements, where is the “smooth implementation of the agreement” when it comes to Israel? Last Saturday I attended an event in support of Israel at the Parliament buildings at Stormont in Belfast, and the speakers there were very aware of what we were trying to say. When it comes to agreed steps to reduce the nuclear programme, where is the evidence of change among the Iranians we are talking to?
Many see Iran as part of the axis of evil in the middle east. Sometimes we have to jump into bed with people we are not terribly happy to jump into bed with, but it happens. Sometimes we have to make agreements with people who are a wee bit unpalatable. I understand that, but I would love to see the evidence that the issues of human rights and religious belief are being addressed. I want an agreement as much as anybody else in this House, including the Minister and the right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this debate, but I want an agreement that safeguards religious beliefs for all in Iran and that addresses the situation of those who are persecuted because of their beliefs, those whose human rights are abused and those who are under threat.
I respect the Minister greatly and know that he is genuinely trying to achieve something we can all get behind and support, but I want to know what is happening with human rights and religious beliefs. What is happening with regard to those who need help? They do not have a voice in Iran, so let us in this House be their voice.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes interesting and important points, none more important than those he was making today about the persecution of Christians.
I want to cover initially the question of the scheduling of this debate, which has been raised in interventions both by me and by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) because the scrutiny of European Union decisions by this House is important. It is a fundamental democratic right that this House is able to scrutinise the decisions made by the Government, and that needs to be done in a timely fashion. This debate was asked for in September; we are now two months on. It is worth bearing it in mind that the longest outstanding demand for a debate was one first made nearly two years ago. The second anniversary will come up in January, and if we have not had the debate by then I shall no doubt hold a birthday party for it. It is quite improper of Her Majesty’s Government to treat the House of Commons in that fashion. When debates are asked for, if the Government do not want to give them, there is a procedure under Standing Orders to put a motion before the House to refuse the debate.
Mr Ellwood
I say in all politeness and courtesy to my hon. Friend that we are now spending a lot of time discussing when the debate should happen. It is happening now. With respect to the European Scrutiny Committee, we have made it very clear that this is the earliest I have been requested to come to the House. I would have been delighted to come earlier. I make it clear that we have had other debates. Now that we are here, I suggest that we focus on the issues.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We do not want to get into a debate about when we should have the debate. I know that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) wants to get back to the issue and is going to bring us back to it now.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I must finish my point on this crucial issue because it is appalling of the Government to take this high-handed line with scrutiny in the House of Commons. It may be that the Minister did not know that this debate was asked for, but if he cared to read, daily, the daily agenda and the requirements for debates, he would have seen that this debate appeared day in, day out. If the Minister has not heard that from his officials, or read it for himself or been told it by the Whips, that is not the fault of the European Scrutiny Committee; it is that the Government are deliberately obstructing debate in this House. They always have time.
I will finish on this point shortly, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is so important because we need to have these debates scheduled properly and quickly. The time that we have now is outside the normal sitting hours, so the argument that there was no day previously when it could have been held is false. We could have an extra 90-minute debate on any day since the request was made by the European Scrutiny Committee two months ago. And that is not the worst of the Government’s treatment of debate in the House. It is quite wrong that the Government should shy away from democratic accountability. I shall say no more on that today, but it is a subject that I will come back to if the Government do not treat the Chamber of the House of Commons properly.
To come on to the documents, I am afraid that I am going to change tack because the Government find me in support of what they are trying to do and, indeed, accepting of the override of scrutiny. When it comes to sanctions on individuals and the lifting of those sanctions, they cannot necessarily go through the full scrutiny process prior to the decision being reported to the House because, particularly when sanctions are being imposed, people would have the opportunity to avoid them in advance. There is a natural understanding of the confidentiality in relation to imposing and lifting sanctions and of the sensitivity with which this was being discussed with Iran. That is completely reasonable.
The second point that is worth making is that most of this was agreed under article 29 of the treaties on the European Union, which operates under unanimity. That is relevant because it shows that the European Union can work on a unanimous basis without any sacrifice of sovereignty by the individual member states. That is a model for future European activity—that we should take action when everybody is agreed because it is then much more powerful.
That is the next point: what has been done has succeeded and what was being aimed for was of the greatest importance. Trying to ensure that Iran did not become a nuclear state in the broad perspective of global security must have been a pre-eminent interest. It is worth noting that the most rogue of rogue states, which I think is North Korea, is secure in its wrongdoing and its internal oppression and is cocking a snook at the rest of the world because Kim Jong-un has a nuclear weapon. Those of us who wish to see a sensible world order want a limit on the number of states with nuclear weapons, and want to try to stop states that are on the margins of the international order getting hold of nuclear weapons. This is a successful policy that has had great advantages for security, but in the process that the Government have undertaken with other states and with the United Nations an important step has been taken in bringing Iran back into the global community. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I think it is a great advantage that Iran is back in the community of nations.
It has long been the case that the best way of achieving international security is dealing with nation states, but all nation states have an inherent interest in their own stability. They wish to maintain law and order within their own nation because it threatens their rule if they do not do so. That makes most nation states in most circumstances the enemy of the terrorist. The terrorist is a greater threat to the United Kingdom than the rogue nation state is likely to be. Equally, the rogue nation state is easier to deal with, because it has a structure that can be attacked from outside if fundamental national interests are offended. Terrorists cannot be attacked in that way, because they are harder to pin down.
We have come to the point in British foreign policy—and, perhaps more importantly, US foreign policy—at which Iran is being brought back into the family of nations. That could be a significant boost to our ability to ensure security in the middle east but also more broadly because it goes back to a fundamental principle that has generally been accepted by most countries since the peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648: the principle that it is the nation state that underpins that security. It is what went wrong from the late 1990s onwards, when it was thought better to interfere in the internal activities of nation states to make them better nation states. That policy turned out to be fundamentally wrong-headed.
We have gained three very good things from the suspension of sanctions. First, it has been shown that the EU can work on the basis of unanimity. Secondly, it has reduced the likelihood of Iran having a nuclear bomb, and, thirdly—this is overwhelmingly the most important—there has been a change of attitude back to treating the nation state as the building block of global security. I very much hope that the Government will apply that in other cases.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and all its members on securing this important debate on the Floor of the House and on their contributions.
I am particularly pleased to have a brief opportunity to take up where my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) left off. I regard the deal with Iran as a positive development. I also regard the regime in Iran as thoroughly undesirable and potentially dangerous, but thoroughly capable of modernisation and reform if handled correctly by the international community. I entirely concur with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), a fellow member of the Select Committee on Defence whose presence I greatly value, on the terrible way in which Christians in particular, Baha’i faith members and other minorities are treated. The behaviour of such a regime, awful though it is, is no more awful than the behaviour of Stalinist Russia. In fact, Stalinist Russia was responsible for innumerable deaths, yet did not produce world war three, which might easily have happened in the nuclear age or, even if nuclear weapons had not been invented, might perhaps have been more likely to happen in the aftermath of world war two.
Where am I leading with this line of argument? It will soon become apparent, because some of us on the Conservative Benches are, according to reports in the paper, being exhorted—I have not been exhorted on the subject myself—in relation to the dilemmas of the middle east, to be more like Churchill than Chamberlain. While I was listening to earlier contributions, a memory stirred and I took the opportunity to check. The memory was correct. When Winston Churchill wrote his multi-volume history of the second world war, volume 3 was entitled “The Grand Alliance”.
What was the grand alliance? It was the coming together of three very different powers, at least one of which was utterly incompatible on normal criteria with the other two. The three powers were, of course, the British Empire, as it still was, the United States of America and Soviet Russia. Churchill was the prime example of someone who knew how to do what one must do in an imperfect, evil and dangerous world when a conflict breaks out. He knew how to choose in an undesirable dilemma which was the lesser of two evils.
I will take the liberty of trying the patience of the House by pointing out something that we have probably heard many times before: when Churchill decided to speak up for Joe Stalin and Soviet Russia, he was reminded of his long-standing aversion to the Soviet system and his claim that Bolshevism should have been strangled at birth. His instant response was, “If Hitler invaded hell, I would have at least a good word to say for the devil in the House of Commons.”
How does that relate to the sort of societies we are looking at in the middle east? Once upon a time, this House had a choice about how to behave towards those societies. In particular, very much in the afterglow of the ending of the cold war, we were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. My party was in opposition. We believed what we were told, but there was another reason too why people like me spoke and voted in favour of the removal of a particular dictator, Saddam Hussein—we hoped that what would emerge from the removal of such a dictator would be some form of modernisation and democracy. What actually re-emerged was the thousand-year-old hatred between Sunni and Shi’a, particularly between those who line up with Iran and those who line up with the Sunnis.
Churchill’s grand alliance meant that he had to line up with Stalin in order to avoid the greater threat posed by Hitlerism. By happy coincidence, we have found ourselves with two debates in the same Chamber on the same day about the two concepts to which, above all, in my personal opinion, we owe the fact that we did not end up with world war three. The first concept is deterrence, and the second is the one to which I referred in my intervention on the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—that is, containment.
I look at the various societies in the middle east, because I no longer think that by bringing down dictators we will get pluralistic democracies; and I no longer think, therefore, that if we bring down Assad, we will get a better result than when we brought down Saddam Hussein or Muammar al-Gaddafi. When I look at the recommendation that we heard from the Defence Secretary in answering a Defence question only yesterday—that our aim, by bombing, will be to get rid both of Assad and of the Islamist danger of ISIL—I ask myself how this is different from the generalship of the first world war which could perhaps have been excused for the Somme but certainly could not have been excused for Passchendaele the following year.
If one does the same thing over and over again and expects to get a different result, then one is insane, and if one does something that worked in the past, then one might get a better result. For Russia, what worked in the past was a combination of deterrence and containment. I look at Iran and say to myself, “Here is a prime candidate for containment”, because Iran is an authoritarian society, and parts of it may be described as totalitarian, but certainly the impression I get from people who talk about it and know about it is that it is far short of the sort of extremist totalitarianism that features in the concept that underlies ISIL or, I must say, the reality that underlies the society of Saudi Arabia, which is supposed to be our ally.
When I look at these different societies, I ask myself which are the most likely, if we can contain them, or keep the lid on them, to develop and evolve—just as our own society, over 500 years or more, developed and evolved—in a modernising direction. I think that Iran is a strong candidate for a society which, if contained and prevented from doing something too terrible, has the prospect of developing in precisely the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, such that it comes back into the comity of nations and does not go further and further into extremism that is exported. The extremist Islamist creed is a fascist, totalitarian creed. Iran, like the Stalinists, has the potential for being held in check and allowing a modernising trend to emerge.
I was interested in what the Chairman of the Committee said when he cited a former ambassador to Iran as evidently someone who thought that there was hope of positive development. On Syria, I have been in close touch with Mr Peter Ford, a former ambassador to Syria who likewise sees the regime there as brutal, or perhaps worse than brutal, but as authoritarian rather than totalitarian. In a choice between freedom, authoritarianism and totalitarianism, we all choose freedom, but sometimes the choice is only between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. The Government want us to choose neither. That is not Churchillian. Churchill knew the difference, and faced with totalitarianism or authoritarianism, I know which choice I would make.
Mr Ellwood
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the debate. Let me first say that I did not realise how hugely anticipated it was; now I certainly realise. I am grateful to be able to respond to some of the important contributions that have been made.
I am grateful to the Labour spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), for his support and that of his party. He is right to pay tribute not just to the EU and the work that has been done with Federica Mogherini, but to Baroness Ashton. I certainly join him in that.
The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), articulated the balanced arguments on how we move forward in taking advantage of the opportunities but deal with the huge challenges that remain.
I would point out that there is an irony in spending 30 minutes of a 90-minute debate on discussing its timing. I suggest that if we want to continue to scrutinise what is happening on this important issue, the Backbench Business Committee should be approached. In response to one remark, I should make it clear that I have no power over that, but I look forward to further scrutiny of this matter.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made an important remark on the links between Glasgow and the current President of Iran. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance, as we embark on a new relationship with Iran, of establishing cultural and educational ties. We are certainly trying to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) made a detailed speech that covered a large number of issues and concerns. I very much appreciate that he has concerns about companies linked to the IRGC. I can confirm that sanctions will remain on individuals listed for terrorism and abuses of human rights reasons, and many companies listed as linked to IRGC members are not due to be considered for delisting for eight years. I hope that that will reassure him.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a passionate speech. He is now recognised in the House for his passion and commitment on human rights. He was absolutely right to raise such matters from the very start. The Iran nuclear deal is out of the way, but we must use the new links at every opportunity, whether through the Foreign Secretary speaking to Foreign Minister Zarif or the visits that will now take place with parliamentarians going to Tehran. Indeed, I raised these very matters when I met the deputy Foreign Minister during his recent visit to the United Kingdom only three weeks ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) reminds us that other nations are seeking to procure nuclear weapons, and there is also North Korea. I absolutely agree with him that we need to prevent those on the margins of international order from gaining a nuclear weapon. I would add that there are also non-state actors about which we need to be concerned.
We may possibly hear again the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on Thursday. I certainly agree with him that this is an opportunity for reform, but one that needs to be handled absolutely correctly.
The nuclear agreement reached in July was certainly a major achievement. The deal will ensure that for the next 10 years, even if Iran reneges on the deal, it would take it at least 12 months to acquire even the necessary fissile material for a single nuclear weapon. Iran’s enrichment capacity will be reduced by more than two thirds of the current level. For 15 years, it will enrich uranium only to the level of 3.67%, which is way below the 90% level required for a nuclear bomb. Its stockpile of enriched uranium will be reduced to just 300 kg, down from more than 8 tonnes.
There will be no nuclear material, uranium enrichment or enrichment research and development for 15 years at the underground Fordow site, which will be converted into a nuclear physics and technology centre. Iran’s research and development will be limited, and it will not be able to enrich with advanced centrifuges for 10 years. The Arak heavy water reactor will be redesigned and rebuilt, so it will no longer be able to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Both the uranium and plutonium routes to a bomb will therefore be cut off. With the passing of adoption day last month and the agreement of the official document for the Arak project last week, Iran has begun to take the actions necessary to bring its nuclear programme within the limits I have outlined.
The deal and the restrictions are now very much in force, but I make it very clear that we are not starry-eyed. This is an agreement based not on trust, but on transparency and verification. Iran will grant the International Atomic Energy Agency unprecedented access to verify Iran’s actions to give us confidence that it is complying with its commitments. Some of the monitoring commitments, such as the implementation of the additional protocol, will last indefinitely. Put simply, if Iran did renege on its commitments and attempted to break-out for a bomb, we would know and have time to respond.
Looking ahead, allowing Iran to receive significant economic and financial benefits through the gradual lifting of sanctions will be vital to ensuring that it continues to abide by its commitments. We want Iran to feel the benefits of the deal. By adopting these measures, we have kept our side of the deal. It is now up to Iran to take the required actions on its nuclear programme. Only when those actions have been taken and the IAEA has verified that they are complete will the nuclear- related financial and economic sanctions be lifted. If at any stage we suspect Iran to be in breach of its commitments, all previous UN, EU and US sanctions can be re-imposed.
To conclude, the past year has been one of the most momentous for British relations with Iran, but we are under no illusions about the challenges ahead. Iran’s interference in regional affairs and its support for terrorist groups remain sources of deep concern. We will continue our robust support for the security of our allies in the region. However, not capitalising on the momentum that has been created by the nuclear deal and refusing to re-engage with Iran would be a perverse response to the progress that we have made.
If mutual trust and confidence can, gradually, be built, there is an opportunity for Iran to realign its approach to regional and global affairs. This opportunity, if embraced, offers Iran a route towards playing a constructive role in the region and feeling the economic benefits that re-engagement with the world will bring. We want to see signs that Iran is willing to move in the right direction. That is not just what we want, but, I believe, what the people of Iran want.
We, too, have a burden of responsibility to live up to our side of the deal. Iran must feel the benefit of sanctions relief if it is to continue to abide by the terms of the agreement in the long term. As such, the UK is working to encourage British businesses to take advantage of the opportunities that will arise once sanctions are lifted. With the embassy in Tehran open again, British diplomats can engage with Iran fully to find a way to work together in the struggle against ISIL, to speak candidly about human rights, and to build a trade and investment relationship that brings benefits to both our countries.
We are going into this deal with our eyes open. We remain optimistic about what can be achieved, but realistic about the challenges we face.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the following unnumbered European Union Documents concerning restrictive measures against Iran: a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1050 of 30 June 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1099 of 7 July 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1130 of 10 July 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1148 of 14 July 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1336 of 31 July 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1327 of 31 July 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1337 of 31 July 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1328 of 31 July 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012, a Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1863 of 18 October 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, a Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1861 of 18 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012, and a Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1862 of 18 October 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012; supports the Government’s view that, had the suspension of certain EU restrictive measures against Iran not been extended in the final stages of negotiations, the prospects for reaching an agreement would have been significantly diminished; and agrees that the amendments to EU legislation to meet the obligations set out in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action contribute to ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful.
Business without Debate
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union Documents
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation (Committees)
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Wheelchair access to railway stations
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I am delighted to present this petition. One of the privileges of being a Member of Parliament is the people one meets. I was privileged to meet a young lady from my constituency called Emma Donaldson, who is a vociferous and tenacious campaigner for disabled rights.
Emma has a great social life, despite being in a wheelchair, and has many friends not only in my constituency, but all over Nottinghamshire. To see some of those friends, she wants to get on a train at Hucknall in my constituency and get off at Kirkby-in-Ashfield in the neighbouring constituency of Ashfield. To her frustration, she is unable to do so because the train station at Kirkby-in-Ashfield does not have disabled access. That means that she has to go on to Mansfield and get a bus or taxi back to visit her friends.
Many of the constituents of Sherwood, when we put this matter to them, found it amazing that in 2015 there are railway stations at which disabled access is very poor. In addition to this petition, there are 500 signatures on another petition that we have collated for Nottinghamshire County Council and Network Rail to draw attention to the fact that the disabled access at Kirkby-in-Ashfield station, in particular, is very poor.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put measures in place to ensure that the platform at Kirkby-in-Ashfield train station is accessible to wheelchair users.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the Sherwood constituency,
Declares that the platform at Kirkby-in-Ashfield train station is not accessible to wheelchair users; further that this is discriminatory and adversely affects the quality of life of those who require a wheelchair to get around as it prevents them from being able to travel in a dignified and independent fashion; further that the platform at Kirkby-in-Ashfield train station should be fully accessible to all train users; and further that another local petition on this matter was signed by 472 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put measures in place to ensure that the platform at Kirkby-in-Ashfield train station is accessible to wheelchair users.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001560]
Mobile Telecommunications Market: Contracts
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
We have a very intimate relationship with them; many of us sleep next to them; they are often the first thing we see in the morning and the last thing we see at night before we go to bed; we rarely let them out of our sight, and when we do we panic for a second; if we accidentally leave them at home, we will invariably go back for them; we get nervous when anybody else touches them. I am talking, of course, about our mobile phones, because those devices are completely embedded in our day-to-day lives. We use them to communicate with loved ones, to conduct business, to buy and sell things, and to entertain, educate and inform. We love our mobile phones, but we do not always love the mobile phone operators or the prices that come with them.
About 95% of UK adults have a mobile phone, and we have one of the highest smartphone adoption rates in the world at 75%. According to consumer group, Which?, just 35% of consumers trust their mobile phone operators, and of the top 100 brands for customer service in the UK, only one of those operators is in the top 50—Three comes in at No. 42, and the other companies came in at Nos. 67, 95 and 96. As a category, that is even below the banks. Also according to Which?, more than 70% of consumers are on the wrong contract for their needs, and that is costing the British public up to £5.4 billion a year more than necessary. In other words, the average UK household could save around £160 a year by choosing a more suitable tariff.
We rarely change our mobile phone company or our tariffs. More than half the UK population have never changed their carrier, and only 6% change carriers or switch each year—that figure is down from 9% a couple of years ago. It is therefore hard to square the general level of dissatisfaction with mobile phone operators and the phenomenon of paying more than we need to, with that incredibly low switching level.
Anyone who has ever tried to switch from one mobile phone operator to another knows that it is a difficult task. The current process requires consumers to almost simultaneously contact their existing provider to terminate their current contract, while getting their desired provider to activate their new one. That is time-consuming, and it often involves conversations about a porting authorisation code—the PAC—or unlocking devices. That is so confusing that many people simply give up and do not bother. No wonder that switching is at that miserably low level of just 6%.
To work out whether it may be worth switching, people need to know what else is on offer, although that is not always easy. Only a third of price comparison sites contain the best available deals. When someone calls their current provider and informs them that they are thinking of switching, they are often put through to something called a retention department where—as if by magic—all of a sudden a better deal appears. That prompts the question of why, if a transparently better offer was available, it had not already been communicated to the consumer.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that transparency is particularly important for the elderly? People are often encouraged to get a mobile phone by their children or grandchildren in case of an emergency, but they are not always technologically savvy enough to know what kind of tariff or package is right for them. They are at high risk of being hugely over-charged when their contract comes to an end, particularly as they get older.
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Research by Which?, and others, has shown that as we go through the age brackets, the number of people switching goes down. Many more people in the elderly age groups are on the wrong contract, and many more do not really know what the process of switching involves. I know that Age UK campaigns on that issue.
What can be done about this issue? The good news is that some progress has already been made. In July, Ofcom launched a consultation on consumer switching, seeking views on a range of mobile switching options. I await the results with interest. The Government have a strong record on consumer affairs, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recently set out six specific proposals, or principles, on switching intended to cover a range of industries including not only the mobile sector but broadband, banking and energy. In these, the Government recognised that consumers should be able to switch quickly, at an agreed date, for free, with access to data in a format that can be easily understood and that the switching process should be gainer-led, eliminating the need to contact both losing and gaining operators. I believe we are unique in Europe in still having a loser-led system for switching.
Things are moving in the right direction. I am aware that some operators themselves are keen on the gainer-led system, including Three. In many ways, I feel I am pushing at an open door on switching. I am confident about progress on switching, but further work is needed on contract transparency and tariffs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I liked the hon. Gentleman’s introduction. I remember my first mobile phone: it was the size of a red brick and I used to carry it everywhere. It filled my hand and two pockets. Mobile phones are a part of life, more so today than ever. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the advantages consumers have is that competition in the market has pushed the price down? Companies want to hold on to their customers as if with glue and they will not let them go. Companies are very reluctant to let go of businesses in particular, because they see their commercial value. Does he think more needs to be done for companies involved in industry and commerce?
Nigel Huddleston
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The debate is focused on the consumer, but the same principles absolutely apply to business: the same discussions and concerns about the customer service of some operators apply equally to business.
When I received my electricity bill the other day, I was very pleased to see a note at the bottom of the bill that said:
“Good news—you’re already on our cheapest overall tariff. We’ll let you know once a year if this changes.”
Would it not be great if there was something similar in the mobile space? Instead, we are paying £5.4 billion more than we have to. Even if that figure is exaggerated and even if it is not correct or just a fraction of that, we are still talking about a significant sum. There are three key reasons why we are significantly overpaying for our mobile services. First, some consumers are paying for services they never use, with 58% generally going under their minutes allocated and 63% under on their text limit.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On consumers paying for services they do not use, does he agree that it is even worse if consumers are paying for a service they cannot use? They enter into a contract in good faith, but are then trapped into a service that does not provide mobile signal at home, on the commute into work, or at work.
Nigel Huddleston
I completely agree. I am focusing on the contract side of things today, but it is absolutely the case that when consumers consider moving operators they look at maps of coverage and whether they can get a 3G or 4G service. That is one of the points to consider. Often they are then persuaded that an alternative operator will fulfil their needs, only to find out when they open the phone at home that that is not the case. There are no repercussions to that and no compensation. That is a major concern that needs to be addressed.
Nusrat Ghani
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the design of mobile phone plans. Does he support encouraging mobile operators to have flexible plans that allow people to pay for a combination of data, calls and texts that reflects their needs, instead of their having to pay more for a plan with unnecessary extra minutes, just because they want more data?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that touches on the whole purpose of this discussion. Many people are either on plans with services they never use, in which case more flexibility would be appreciated, or paying a penal rate for services they did not anticipate using but ended up using. That is costing consumers hundreds of millions of pounds a year—I think that £885 million a year is spent on out-of-tariff charges, for example.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am on the Labour Benches because I want to give the impression that Labour Members are also interested in this important consumer issue. In fact, I should be sitting beside my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is meant to be making a short intervention, not trying to score political points, in what is actually an Adjournment debate. I am sure that hon. Members want to hear from the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), so I want a short intervention.
Gavin Robinson
It was only a quip, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have a sim card for an iPad that I do not use, but I have discovered that for the last two years the provider has been removing £10.21 from my bank account every month. When I phoned and asked to cancel the charge, I was told I needed the serial number on the sim card, which I no longer had. Is that not something that should be looked at—taking finance for a service that is unavailable?
Nigel Huddleston
I know that many Labour colleagues are also very concerned about this issue, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the failure of customer service and the perception that providers can dip into our accounts, regardless of whether the service is being delivered or is adequate to an individual’s needs. We are building a picture here of the customer service challenges among the mobile operators.
There is another point of which many Members will be aware from their constituency correspondence. It concerns a situation where a consumer signs up to a contract, perhaps with a new device, that is then bundled with a service charge. Go forward 24 months, to when the contract expires, and instead of being over, the contract is rolled forward, and we get this bizarre situation where the consumer continues to pay for the device as well as the service. This can be a considerable hit on their finances. Some 46% of mobile users do not change their tariff as soon as their initial bundle ends and so pay an extra £92 effectively for handsets they have already paid for. This is a dire consequence of such behaviour. More transparency and proactive communication would help. Such behaviour is why levels of switching and the major carriers’ reputations for customer service are so low.
I understand that mobile businesses are businesses not charities—we expect them to make a profit and invest in infrastructure; they employ hundreds of thousands of people and contribute millions to the Exchequer every year; they do many positive things—but they need to realise that it is possible to make a profit and give good customer service. A good start would be for operators to make switching easier, separate handset costs from service costs, make that clear in bills, which some do but many do not, and proactively communicate the best available deals to customers.
I ask the Minister and regulators to put more power back in the hands of mobile customers, and I ask mobile operators to do the right thing by their customers and avoid unnecessary regulation and legislation. I thank my hon. Friends for participating in this debate, at a much later hour than originally anticipated, and I particularly thank the Minister for taking his time to attend the debate. He brings vast experience to this arena, and I hope he will continue to work with colleagues in both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to create an even more competitive, fairer and consumer friendly mobile market in the UK.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am extremely grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the chance to respond to this important debate brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), in which there have been telling contributions from other hon. Members and hon. Friends.
I confess that at one or two points during the debate, I was confused. I was confused at the beginning, with my hon. Friend’s opening remarks about bedtime habits. I wondered where we were going, but I am glad we got back on to the straight and narrow, without straying too far from the subject. I was confused, too, by the movement on the Opposition Benches, and wondered which party each of the Members belonged to, but I knew that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) could not have been a member of the Labour party, because it is still debating its policy on this issue. It will come before the shadow Cabinet next Monday, but various labels in the shape of a mobile phone have been left around by different factions in the Labour party, which are expressing their position on this issue on each other’s doorknobs.
As time is short, I shall not give the House a potted history of my relationship with the mobile phone. It is, I think, telling for all of us that we can now measure our age in terms of our mobile phone acquisition. I can now say in a pub or club that I am old enough to remember buying my first mobile phone. My children will not be able to say that. It was, in fact, politics that brought me into mobile phone territory; I bought one when I was a candidate for Bristol East. I decided that, given that I was going to wage a vigorous campaign in the 1997 election, I would need a mobile phone. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it was very effective, as I turned a 5,000 Labour majority into a 17,000 Labour majority. My mobile phone and I have never looked back, and it is never far from my hand.
We need to talk about the subject in hand. It is an important subject: mobile contracts. It is no secret that there are probably more mobile phone contracts than there are now people in the United Kingdom. It is thus an important issue to pretty much every adult in the country. It is important that people feel that they are being treated fairly, and that, as hon. Members have said, they are given clear and accurate information and can switch providers easily. It is important that the switching process is made as easy as possible to help consumers and provide greater competition.
We have a good, competitive mobile market in the UK. We have four main network operators, but we also have what are known as mobile virtual network operators. The UK is relatively unique in having such competition in that respect, with companies such as Tesco and Virgin providing over-the-top networks. This kind of competition keeps prices low and means that consumers are offered a wide range of tariffs. It is also why the average price of a mobile package has come down by over two thirds in the last decade in real terms.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire was right when he pointed out that there are low levels of trust in the mobile sector. In fact, one in four of us tends to distrust or strongly distrust mobile providers. We have discussed this issue with some of those providers, and it is obvious that they need to work to improve consumer trust, and that more needs to be done. To repeat my earlier point, that means access to clear and accurate information about the deals on offer, the basis on which charges are made, the quality of the service provided—my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) intervened on that point—and how to complain when things go wrong.
Ofcom has taken action to improve the situation. It has set clear standards for contracts. It stops them, for example, from automatically rolling over, which used to be a practice in the industry. It has also ensured that when prices change, those price changes are communicated clearly. It is important, of course, that consumers can walk away if the price changes in a contract. In fact, mobile providers have been fined almost £3 million for mishandling complaints, and Ofcom publishes complaints on its website.
Although trust in the mobile providers is quite low, satisfaction with the service and value for money is quite high, with nine out of 10 consumers saying that they are either satisfied or very satisfied. We will continue to work with the industry to increase consumer confidence.
We have a number of principles when we look at this market. One is that consumers should not be trapped in contracts in which they are not getting the coverage they expected to get. Ofcom is discussing with mobile providers the possibility of their offering redress, which would include allowing customers to leave a contract when service was unacceptable. There is now a cooling-off period, which enables customers to leave a contract without incurring a penalty within 14 days of it starting. That allows those who buy mobile phones to check their coverage levels over the period, and to cancel their contracts if they are not receiving the coverage that they would expect. A lack of coverage in the home is the most likely scenario. We want to improve mobile coverage generally, which is why we signed a landmark deal to ensure that 90% of the UK’s land mass would be covered by the end of 2017.
Let me say something about switching, which is the main subject of tonight’s debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire said, many more people switch their car insurance or their energy supplier than change their mobile provider, and the number of those who do so is falling. Those who do switch, however, find the process fairly or very easy. In 2011, we made changes through Ofcom. For instance, we speeded up the process for customers to switch mobile providers while keeping their phone numbers, which was important. However, we think that further improvements can be made.
In the summer, Ofcom published the results of a consultation on mobile switching As my hon. Friend said, there are two options. There is the gaining provider-led process—the new provider clearly has an incentive to make the process as smooth as possible—and there is a simplified version of the existing process. It is important for Ofcom to consult on that, and we look forward to seeing the outcome of its work.
As my hon. Friend mentioned in his excellent speech, we are seeking evidence across the economy in our search for ways of making it easier for consumers to switch providers. We have said that switching should be free to consumers unless they have consented to charges, and that that consent must be arrived at fairly: the consumer must understand what the charges are likely to be. The process must be quick, and must be completed on an agreed date. It should be led, by and large, by the organisation that has the most interest in making it work effectively. Consumers should have access to their consumption or transaction data, because that will inform them of the existence of what might be a better contract. If websites and tools are receiving payments from suppliers, they should make that clear, and should also make it clear how it affects the presentation of results. There should also be an effective way of enabling consumers to secure redress if something goes wrong in the switching process.
There are three stages in the process: gaining access to clear information, assessing and comparing the elements of the information gained, and being able to act on the information easily. We propose further measures to improve consumers’ ability to make informed decisions, which can be grouped into the same three stages.
First, there is the question of access. We want providers to ensure that billing and charges are clear by breaking down the separate elements of a bill. According to Which?—as my hon. Friend has pointed out, tonight and previously—70% of people are on the wrong mobile phone contract, in the sense that they are probably paying more than they should. Separating the various charges would make it easier to inform consumers. We also need to run consumer awareness campaigns, because consumers may think that switching is more difficult than it really is.
Secondly, there is the need to assess whether the new provider will give consumers the coverage that they want. Ofcom launched mobile coverage maps in the summer, so that consumers can compare the services and levels of coverage offered by different providers throughout the country. As I said earlier, gaining access to transaction and usage data in a suitable format will allow them to compare the different offers in the marketplace.
Thirdly, we are committed to making switching as easy as possible. We want to legislate for that, and we are looking into how we could do so. We will work with Ofcom in our part of the economy, as it were, with the aim of introducing, across the board, processes in which the gaining provider leads the switch, and customers have less contact with the provider that they are leaving. As my hon. Friend pointed out, when consumers leave providers, the providers introduce plenty of hurdles—or, as they might say, incentives—to encourage them to stay. We think that our work will help to ensure that consumers have a consistent, simplified experience when switching.
Obviously, we cannot be complacent. Ofcom’s work on mobile switching, and our commitment to quicker, easier switching in communications markets, will provide for an effective, consumer-friendly environment in which switching provider will be less hassle for the consumer. We will constantly consider whether further action is needed to ensure that consumers can take informed decisions and have absolute clarity about their mobile contracts.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Northern Ireland (Elections) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015
(8 years, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Northern Ireland (Elections) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I welcome the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North and for Bradford South to their places for what will hopefully be a concise Committee. This statutory instrument provides for a number of changes to the legislative framework for Northern Ireland elections. Some are minor administrative points, and I will focus on the two most substantive provisions.
The draft order makes provision to allow the retention of certain entries on the Northern Ireland electoral register for a further year. Northern Ireland is unique within the UK in not holding an annual canvass to refresh its register. Since 2006 the register in Northern Ireland has been maintained via not a canvass but a system of continuous registration that relies on cross-checking electoral data against prescribed official data streams.
That approach is possible because all electoral registration in Northern Ireland has been individual registration, rather than household registration, since 2002. Following the last full Northern Ireland canvass in 2013, provision was made to retain some entries on the register where the individuals in question had not returned the canvass form, but where the chief electoral officer had no reason to question the validity of their entry. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland was able to assess the validity of entries for those “non-respondents” as all the individuals in question were individually registered, and the Electoral Office’s data-checking facility with both the Department for Work and Pensions and health service records allows a high level of assurance on people’s current address and other key information.
Let me be clear that the entries that relate to those non-respondents were all checked after the 2013 canvass and have been continuously checked since then in response to alerts from other Government data sources. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland receives regular updates of data from a variety of official sources, including the DWP and the Registrar General, as well as from an organisation called Business Services Organisation, which holds all the details of individuals on GP and dentist lists in Northern Ireland.
If there is an inconsistency between the data on the register and those received from the other data sources, the Electoral Office issues chasing letters to the individual and then a final warning. If the individual does not respond, they are removed from the register. Of the 112,000 registered electors who did not respond to the 2013 canvass but had responded in 2006, about 10,000 have been removed from the register, and more than 20,000 have been successfully re-registered. Approximately 82,000 voters are therefore affected by the provision we are considering today.
The original provision made in 2013 to retain those particular entries on the register was for two years and will expire at the beginning of December this year, when the new register is published. However, it was always the intention that the retained entries should not be removed in advance of the next Northern Ireland Assembly elections. Due to the clash of the parliamentary general election and the Assembly election, which was originally scheduled for 2015, the date of the Assembly election was postponed until May 2016. That postponement is the reason we need the extension of these provisions for one further year.
Both the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland share the Government’s view that the retention of these entries for a further year is appropriate in the context of the continuous registration system employed in Northern Ireland. This will be the final provision made to retain non-respondent voters. We propose to introduce digital registration in Northern Ireland in 2016. In the context of easier online registration and the publicity associated with its introduction, non-respondent voters will be given clear notice that they will come off the register in December 2016 if they do not take action. I urge the political parties in Northern Ireland to at least start a process of encouraging people to register, to ensure that if we take people off the register in future, they are fully aware they have had plenty of opportunities to register to vote before any elections are due.
The second substantive provision made by the order is that the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland will not be guilty of an offence if they take steps to fully correct procedural errors made at Assembly elections that would otherwise be a breach of their official duty. Currently, for all Northern Ireland elections with the exception of those for the Assembly, the relevant legislation provides that the chief electoral officer will not be guilty of an offence if they take steps to remedy in full an administrative error or omission. The order will correct that anomaly and bring the provision in respect of Assembly elections into line with the provisions for parliamentary, European and local elections in Northern Ireland. Although that is an electoral matter, and therefore is not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it tangentially touches upon criminal justice matters. The Committee will wish to know that I have written to the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice to inform him of our intentions, as a matter of courtesy.
In addition to those provisions, the order will make a number of other minor amendments to ensure consistency of administrative approach at Assembly elections. Electoral law is complex, and as small changes are made to provisions for parliamentary and other types of election, it is important that we keep the legislative framework under review and adjust the regulations as necessary where an inconsistency has crept into the provisions.
I hope that the Committee agrees that the implementation of these changes in advance of the Northern Ireland Assembly election in May 2016 is both logical and reasonable. I assure the Committee that all these changes are fully supported by both the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, for my debut delegated legislation Committee. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), the shadow Minister for Northern Ireland. This Committee was originally scheduled for yesterday, and my hon. Friend had made arrangements to be present but is unfortunately out of the country today. He asked me to apologise on his behalf and to assure the Committee that no disrespect is intended.
Turning to today’s business, I would like formally to put on the record the Opposition’s support for last week’s agreement and pay credit to the UK and Irish Governments and all the parties for the considerable amount of work undertaken over 10 long weeks to resolve the crisis that was threatening to destabilise the functioning of the Stormont Assembly. I would also like to place on record my party’s thanks to the outgoing First Minister, Peter Robinson, for his considerable service to the people of Northern Ireland.
The order will amend the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 and the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 in order to make necessary changes to rules relating to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. We consider that the statutory instrument is not contentious and, as such, we will support its implementation. However, I have two questions for the Minister.
First, in view of the changes made last year to anonymous voter registration in Northern Ireland, can the Minister assure the Committee that changes to the timeframe for updating the register, where certain details have not been confirmed, will in no way impact individuals who are registered anonymously? Secondly, will he say what additional funds are being made available by the Treasury and the Cabinet Office for the digital changeover?
In conclusion, I confirm that the Opposition will not object to the order. We pay tribute to all in Westminster, Stormont and Dublin who are working to bring normalcy to Northern Ireland. Their efforts will always be supported by the Opposition, and we wish them every success.
Mr Wallace
What a fine debut that was. On the issue of anonymous voters, the best answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that I shall write to her with the details. I hope that the Cabinet Office has heard loud and clear that funding is required to ensure that Northern Ireland catches up on digital registration. The Committee can rest assured that the Northern Ireland Office is pressing the case, and hopefully we will hear about that soon. I will be delighted to share that good news with the hon. Lady, if and when we get it.
The main aim of the order is to allow more time for people who have effectively gone missing from the register to get on it. We know that they are there, because we have much deeper and more extensive cross-checking there than we do on the mainland of the United Kingdom, but they have not responded. I reiterate, however, that it is not the Government’s intention to endlessly allow extensions. There is a duty on the bodies in Northern Ireland to ensure that electors avail themselves of their right to vote, but people also have individual responsibility. There are only so many times we can chase people to register to vote. In the end, it is their right that they are giving away if they do not register, and I hope the message comes from today’s Committee that this is the last time we will give such an extension. That gives people plenty of time to start getting engaged and active in electoral politics. I thank the Opposition for their support.
Question put and agreed to.
Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Electoral Commission
Local Government Boundary Commission for England
(8 years, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That in pursuance of paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended, Bronwen Curtis be appointed as lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, for a period of four years from 26 January 2016.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Motion 2—Electoral Commission—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Rob Vincent as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 January 2016 for the period ending on 31 December 2019.
Motion 3—Local Government Boundary Commission for England—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Professor Colin Mellors as Chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with effect from 1 January 2016 for the period ending on 31 December 2020.
Dr Coffey
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Wilson. It is good to see you in your place. I know that you spent many distinguished years serving as an Opposition Whip.
The first motion proposes that Bronwen Curtis be appointed as a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for four years from 26 January 2016. SCIPSA is a statutory committee, created by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, and is responsible for the oversight of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority through appointing board members to IPSA and by approving the organisation’s estimate. The vacancy has arisen due to the term of Dame Janet Gaymer, one of SCIPSA’s current lay members, coming to an end on 25 January. I am sure that this Committee would like to put on the record its thanks to Dame Janet for her service. SCIPSA produced an explanatory memorandum in relation to the motion, which has been made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. I have also ensured that members of this Committee have been sent copies of the explanatory memorandum, together with the other reports that relate to our debate today.
The candidate named in the motion, Bronwen Curtis, has been a civil service commissioner, the chairman of the Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust, and a member of various review bodies. The duration of appointments as lay members of SCIPSA are staggered to provide continuity for the Committee. Accordingly, the motion provides that Ms Curtis should be appointed for four years.
The second motion proposes that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Rob Vincent as an electoral commissioner for four years from 1 January 2016. The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced a report in relation to this motion. The vacancy arose following the decision of Max Caller to resign from the commission when he was appointed the commissioner for Tower Hamlets by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I am sure that this Committee would like to thank Max Caller for his service. This recruitment was conducted, at the request of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, by a board, which recommended Rob Vincent. Mr Vincent served as chief executive of Kirklees Council from 2004 to 2010 and was a non-executive director for the Department for Communities and Local Government from 2008 to 2010. Between 2010 and 2012, Mr Vincent led the intervention into Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, at the request of the then Secretary of State. Most recently, he has acted as an adviser to the Department of Health on the transition of public health from the NHS to local government.
The final motion before the Committee proposes that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Professor Colin Mellors as the chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England for five years from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020. Again, the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced a report in relation to this motion. The LGBCE is responsible for reviewing local authority electoral arrangements and can also conduct reviews of the structure of local government and the external boundaries of local authorities.
The vacancy has arisen because the current chair, Max Caller, is approaching the maximum permitted length of service. The recruitment was conducted, at the request of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission by a board, which made this unanimous recommendation. Professor Mellors is the current deputy chair of the LGBCE. His most recent executive role was as the pro-vice-chancellor of the University of York. He has been involved in several economic development activities across Yorkshire and the Humber and is a board member of the York and North Yorkshire local enterprise partnership.
In summary, this Committee is being asked to consider motions to appoint Bronwen Curtis as a lay member of SCIPSA for four years, Rob Vincent as an electoral commissioner for four years, and Professor Colin Mellors as chair of the LGBCE for five years. I hope that the Committee, and ultimately the House, will support the appointments and wish those individuals well as they take up their new posts.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
First, I apologise for arriving late and breathless; I was trying to deal with a constituency matter.
The appointments are important, and the Committee should really satisfy itself that the people whom we are putting forward are appropriate for the tasks ahead of them, which are very onerous indeed. One of the roles relates to IPSA, which is a matter of great sensitivity and high importance to members of the public. It is important to get the right person who understands both sides of the House, how Members of Parliament work and the public’s expectations about what we should be doing and how we should do it when using public money. I apologise if I missed this, but I would like to hear a little more from the Minister about whether the proper processes were followed in respect of these appointments, and whether the people, particularly in relation to the IPSA appointment, are well qualified.
Exactly the same applies to the Electoral Commission, because some significant issues are currently affecting our democracy, including the drawing of future constituency boundaries, and every Member of Parliament has a great sensitivity about such issues. We should not consider lightly the question of who should be involved with local government boundaries and the Electoral Commission. If someone has been plucked from a list of the great and the good, they will be okay and they will not rock the boat, but this is perhaps a period when serious scrutiny—more serious than ever—is necessary because of how the Government have politicised the process around the boundary proposals.
The Government still have proposals on the table to reduce the number of Members of Parliament by 50, which will squeeze out those areas that do not have good numbers on the register. That may apply particularly to areas like mine and perhaps yours, Mr Wilson, where high numbers of people are not on the register. The problem applies particularly to inner-city areas like mine and some rural places, which I understand that you represent, Mr Wilson. It is important that we get someone with a view about how to get people on the register, which is an important part of our democracy. If that is not done, it will be a great injustice. This is about the Electoral Commission and getting people registered so that they can play their full part in our democracy. It is not some cosy procedural nicety whereby we put someone on the committee and the job is done. We need people to speak up for the 17 million disfranchised people in this country. They need someone on the Electoral Commission to pipe up for them.
My other concern relating to the Electoral Commission is that the concept has now entered our vocabulary of “voter suppression”, with which Martin Luther King and others would be very familiar. We need someone on the Electoral Commission who will look to voter engagement and go against this tide of voter suppression. I will provide two brief examples. First, in order to register, a person now needs to provide a national insurance number. Many people have it in their head—I do not—but for many others it is a little bar to filling out the forms. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the officials think this is funny, but perhaps they could do me the courtesy of listening to my argument. I know that it is an encumbrance to have elected Members on their feet talking about such matters.
The Chair
I ask Mr Allen to stick to the appointments. We do not want a wider debate on electoral registration.
Mr Allen
The Government will get their way, so they should not object too much to an elected representative squeaking as the steamroller approaches.
Clearly, the person who is appointed and the process of appointment are very important when looking at a trend within the institutions that we are concerned about—particularly the Electoral Commission—to make it more difficult rather than easier for people to vote or register. That is my simple point on registration. We are now hearing from the Electoral Commission—this person will serve with and interact with the Electoral Commission —that passports may be required for individuals to vote on the day. As anyone would say, particularly if they represent a tougher demography, that may well be enough to put a lot of people off. Even one person being put off by that is too many, so we need someone on these bodies to stick up for the non-registered and for voter registration.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
With regard to the Electoral Commission, there is substantial representation from the political parties on a quarterly basis, so many of these issues could be raised through that avenue. On the specific appointments, there has been substantial scrutiny and consideration of the individuals who have been put forward, including of their background and the contributions that they can offer. The Deputy Leader of the House has given an extensive briefing on their qualifications, experience and talents that they would lend to the specific roles. The Opposition’s position is that we are satisfied that my hon. Friend’s concerns will be addressed and that the individuals proposed will be open to listening to the political parties’ views through the appropriate channels at the Electoral Commission and other bodies.
Mr Allen
I am delighted that the Front Benchers are happy with this process. Using what little experience I have as the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for the past five years and from holding the Electoral Commission to account on a very regular basis—probably even more often than quarterly—the points I wish to make are on behalf of 17 million people who are not on the register. For those people, the tide is now turning away from the extension of the franchise that we have had for 170 years and towards making it more difficult for people to vote and more difficult for people to register. I just want the Minister to reassure us that the people involved in appointments to IPSA and related bodies are the sort of people who will stand up for the individual voter and elector and not always just for Front-Bench interests.
Dr Coffey
I found that speech rather insulting. This process has gone through the Speaker’s Committees for each of these bodies. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman—I was going to ask him—has had time to read the reports that were sent to him in advance of today’s meeting, but if he has, he will know the extensive processes that we have gone through. Rob Vincent was chief executive of Kirklees Council—as I said earlier, though the hon. Gentleman was not here for the start of our consideration today—and he was the registration officer for that council, so he certainly has experience of registration issues.
I expect hon. Members to recognise the process that the proposals have gone through. The Speaker follows best practice guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. We have had panels of independent people and the involvement of Members of Parliament, and the Government have been particularly involved. This has been done through the Speaker’s Committees and considered under the processes of the House. I endorse the opinions of the boards and the Speaker’s Committees in making these recommendations today.
Question put and agreed to.
ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Rob Vincent as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 January 2016 for the period ending on 31 December 2019.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Professor Colin Mellors as Chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with effect from 1 January 2016 for the period ending on 31 December 2020.
Armed Forces Bill
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. First we will first go through the Bill and then we will consider the new clauses that have been tabled. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected new clauses have been grouped together for debate. New clauses grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. A Member who has put their name to the lead new clause in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the new clauses within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of new clauses I shall call the Member who moved the lead new clause again. Before they finish speaking they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the new clause or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other new clause in the group to a vote, they need to let the Chair know. We will begin with clause 1.
Clauses 1 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
New Clause 2
Requirement to publish statistics on sexual assault and rape
‘(1) Each service police force must collect and publish annually anonymised statistics on the number of allegations of sexual assault and rape made by and against members of the armed forces.
(2) The Director of Service Prosecutions must collect and publish annually anonymised statistics on the number of cases involving allegations of sexual assault and rape made by and against members of the armed forces, including but not necessarily limited to—
(a) the number of cases referred from the service police forces;
(b) how many of these cases were prosecuted; and
(c) how many convictions were secured’.—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Removal of Commanding Officer’s discretion to investigate allegations of sexual assault—
‘(1) Schedule 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 [Schedule 2 offences] is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (12)(at), leave out “3, 66, 67 or’.
Mr Jones
New clause 2, as we discussed in the evidence session, requires the service police to collect and keep an annual register of sexual assaults and rapes made against members of our armed forces and to publish the data annually. The register will include the number of cases referred to the service police, how many cases are prosecuted and how many convictions are secured.
People might ask why this is important. It is important because it is a practice that is conducted in civilian police forces. All the evidence we have taken on this Bill, and on the previous Bill that I had the honour of serving on, indicates that the Ministry of Defence’s aim is to get service discipline and operations in line with the civilian police.
The situation in which a member of the armed forces comes under a body of law that is different from the normal criminal and civil law is unique. That is understandable, because of the circumstances in which we ask members of the armed forces to serve. However, we need to go back to the horrendous issues at Deepcut and, unfortunately, some of the recent cases, despite the advances that have been made in all three services to try to address sexual harassment and sexual assault.
I commend General Sir Nick Carter, who has a clear determination not only to change the culture, but to make a difference. The new clause will help in that process by enabling the prevalence of sexual harassment and complaints to be monitored. That is important because we know that people who are convicted of sexual assaults usually have a history of minor misbehaviour in the lead-up to the assault. It is important for the police to have the discretion to look at an individual’s history.
The idea that this is not happening in the armed forces is not the case. The 2015 report on harassment showed that 39% of servicewomen questioned said that they had received unwelcome comments about appearance and sexual activities, compared with 22% of servicemen. Some 33% of servicewomen had received unwelcome attempts to talk about sexual matters, compared with 19% of servicemen. It is concerning that 12% of servicewomen received unwanted attempts to touch them, compared with only 6% of servicemen.
As General Carter said in his evidence, such behaviour is not acceptable. The document he put before us, “The Army Leadership Code: An Introductory Guide”, which is for all new members of the Army, makes it clear that UK criminal law should apply to all soldiers serving abroad and that there is zero tolerance of anyone who steps outside the law. I think that everyone would agree that this is not a party political issue.
Without a central register, we are leaving our armed forces at a disadvantage. I do not understand the resistance to the proposals. This is not a matter of collecting statistics for statistics’ sake; in some cases this could make an important evidential contribution to someone’s conviction. More worrying is the investigation by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which found that no criminal register exists in the service police forces. Civilian police forces can look at the civilian register to see what crimes have been committed, but no such transparency about what is going on exists for the armed forces.
The Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household (Kris Hopkins)
I want to respond to the two new clauses. I acknowledge the sentiment with which the hon. Member for North Durham articulated their content, but we are not convinced of the need to incorporate them, and I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition on that matter.
We do not believe it necessary to put into legislation the publication of data that are set out in new clause 2. Civilian authorities are under no such duty; nevertheless, they publish such information. It may reassure Committee members if I briefly set out the existing requirements within the service justice system for the collection and publication of crime statistics. The Service Police Crime Bureau, which acts in all three services, already records allegations of rape and sexual assault that are made to service police. That information is released regularly in response to parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests. In addition, it is uploaded on to the Ministry of Defence’s online publications scheme, where it can be freely accessed. It therefore gives a good picture of the extent of that type of offending within the services. However, work is ongoing to improve the way that the service police record crime, and a crime register is being established—as mentioned in the supplementary note added by the Ministry of Defence—which will lead to further improvements. Essentially, a register is going to be put together that will build upon the information already out there.
For each year, the service prosecuting authority records the number of cases referred to it, the number of cases referred that involve charges and the number of cases where conviction is secured. In addition, the Military Court Service regularly publishes on the internet details of every case heard at the court martial, including offences, outcomes and punishments. Those data give a strong indication of the proportion of cases referred from the service police to the Service Prosecuting Authority that were prosecuted and the conviction rate in each case.
In conclusion, information about the types of crimes and the prosecution of them is available, and the MOD is actively working to improve the way in which those data are put forward. What came through from last week’s evidence was the leadership being offered in the service to make sure people are transparent. General Carter’s leadership on this demonstrated that people want to be open and to make sure the information is available, and it is appropriate that they are already actively seeking mechanisms to help them be more transparent. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw new clause 2.
New clause 3 is not necessary. The armed forces already have procedures in place to ensure that allegations of offences covered by the new clause, including sexual assault, are handled appropriately, and the commanding officer’s duties in that respect are clear. The starting point is that if a commanding officer becomes aware of an allegation, or of evidence, that would indicate to a reasonable person that a service offence may have been committed by someone under his command, he must ensure that it is investigated appropriately. That is already a specific statutory duty under section 115 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, and the commanding officer must therefore refer the matter to the service police if that would be appropriate.
In so far as allegations of sexual misconduct are concerned, there is a specific requirement in the manual of service law that a commanding officer take legal advice in such cases. In addition, the Army has adopted a belt-and-braces policy, which requires that any complaint or allegation involving a sexual element be passed to the service police for investigation and that legal advice be obtained if there is any doubt.
It is important to note that the service police can and do act on their own initiative, so what happens is not dependent just on the behaviour or activity of the commanding officer. If a witness or victim believes they have not had the commanding officer’s support, or they want to go directly to the civilian police or the service police, they can do that. The service police will actively go in pursuit of a perpetrator they come across, whether they are out patrolling or have been passed information by the civilian police.
It is important for many people out there observing these things to note that the commanding officer does not blindly go into a situation. They are trained and taken to a highly competent level in terms of understanding their obligations, and the requirements on them, as a leader. Given the standard of the training, and the victim’s opportunity to bypass the commanding officer and to go directly to a civilian police officer or a service police officer to gain support, the new clause is not required. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman not to press it.
Mr Jones
That comes as no surprise—I was a Minister at the Ministry of Defence, and this is my third Armed Forces Bill. What we seem to be getting from the Ministry yet again is the idea that it agrees that there is a case for the two new clauses, but that they will somehow inhibit us in terms of the current position. What we have seen with previous amendments is that the MOD will finally get to our position. We have not had a great deal from the hon. Member for Keighley in terms of arguing why the new clauses are not needed. I will seek the Committee’s leave to withdraw new clause 2, but I give notice that we may return to these amendment on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Civilian investigations and prosecutions relating to murder, sexual assault, and rape
‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 118 [Duty of service policeman to notify CO of referral to DSP] insert—
“118A Civilian investigations and prosecutions relating to murder, sexual assault, and rape
(1) Criminal investigations into allegations of murder, sexual assault, and rape by and against members of the Armed Forces shall be undertaken by the relevant civilian police authorities.
(2) Criminal prosecutions of charges involving murder, sexual assault, and rape by and against members of the Armed Forces shall be undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service.”’— (Mr Kevan Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The important issue is whether the service police have the capability to deal with rape and serious sexual assault. There was a time in the UK, which I think many can remember, when civilian police forces dealt with rape in a very unsatisfactory way. All police forces have made great advances and take rape seriously. They have dedicated officers and ensure that the victim is treated with the respect that he or she requires. That includes ensuring that victims are not made to feel guilty about what is an horrendous act.
As to expertise, anyone who has met police officers who deal with victims of rape or serious sexual assault will know that they are highly trained and that they are also vetted to make sure they are the correct individuals to undertake the work. Not too long ago, it seemed quite acceptable in civilian life for male officers to deal with female rape victims. The issue addressed by the new clause is whether, when individuals in the armed forces make accusations of rape or serious sexual assault, the service police have the right expertise—I do not question the officers’ integrity—to investigate allegations at the level that would happen in civilian life.
The figures speak for themselves. In 2013, the three service police forces referred 26 cases involving rape and 56 involving sexual assault to the Service Prosecuting Authority. In London, the case load of an individual officer dealing with sexual assault or rape is between 12 and 31 cases. Not only do civilian police have training and expertise but, given the number of cases they deal with, they clearly see a wider range, which has an effect on their ability to investigate. If records are not kept—as they would be under new clause 2—victims of serious sexual assault or rape need to be confident that it will be properly investigated when they report it. Any doubt about that could lead to a reluctance to come forward.
The Ministry of Defence and the military need to deal with the fact that service police are members of the armed services. There may be a perception by victims—although it may be mistaken—that the military investigates the military. Allowing civilian police to have precedence in investigating these cases would reassure the potential victim that there is a degree of independence. It would be wrong for anything to lead to a victim of sexual assault or rape not to come forward because they felt that in some way their allegations would not be taken seriously or investigated properly.
Given the numbers of cases that the three service police forces deal with, can we really expect them to develop the expertise that we expect in civilian life today? I am not sure we can, not only because of the cost of training individuals, but because of the number of cases that the three service police forces deal with, which is thankfully quite small, in terms of the overall service community.
Kris Hopkins
This is an extremely serious matter, and it is right that we examine it. I hope to give some reassurance to members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for North Durham, that our house and the MOD’s house is in order and that we can address these issues.
I believe the service police and the Service Prosecuting Authority have the necessary expertise and independence to effectively investigate and prosecute offences of murder, rape and sexual assault by and against service personnel. The service justice system has been scrutinised by the UK courts and by Strasbourg, and it has been held to be compliant with the European convention on human rights for both investigations and prosecutions within the UK and abroad, where the civilian police do not have jurisdiction. The service police have been held by the courts to be structurally and in practice independent of the chain of command.
I want to talk about capability. The service police are trained and able to carry out investigations into the most serious offences at home and abroad. Training takes place at the Defence College of Policing and Guarding. All prospective members of the special investigation branch, which investigates serious crimes, must pass a serious crime investigation course before being selected for that unit. Officers receive specialist training on handling sexual offences, investigative techniques, forensic awareness, dealing with witnesses and suspects, the preservation of evidence and interacting with victims. In addition, selected service police attend a range of specialist and advanced detective training courses at the DCPG or externally, at the College of Policing or at training providers accredited by the college.
Prosecutors at the Service Prosecuting Authority must undertake the training necessary to effectively prosecute serious cases. For example, the prosecution of serious sexual offences requires attendance on the Crown Prosecution Service’s rape and serious sexual offences specialist training course, and the SPA ensures that decisions on charging in such cases are only taken by prosecutors who have undertaken that training.
It is important to address the issue of independence raised by the hon. Gentleman. The Director of Service Prosecutions is an independent civilian office holder, exercising statutory powers under the superintendence of the Attorney General.
The Service Prosecuting Authority is created by statute, and the three main elements consist of the creation of the office of Director of Service Prosecutions and his appointment by Her Majesty, with the director appointed on the basis of a fair and open competition; the provision for who may act on his behalf, with the director specifying those lawyers who may act on his behalf; and the necessary statutory powers in relation to prosecutions in service courts being given to the director personally, not the chain of command. The service police and the Service Prosecuting Authority have the necessary expertise and the independence to effectively investigate and prosecute the full range of offences overseas and at home. Therefore, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I, too, acknowledge the sentiments in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for North Durham. I underline the fact that they are important, but it is also important that the armed forces retain the ability and the expertise to investigate these offences when they occur, not least because they may occur overseas from time to time, where civilian police authorities will not be present.
From my history with the police, I know that when an allegation of rape has been made, the first 24 to 48 hours are critical in gathering forensics, preserving evidence and handling the victim. It is critical that that is done correctly. Any delay after an allegation leads to a serious diminution in the possibility of any kind of conviction. If we had been presented with evidence that showed that conviction rates were significantly lower in the military than in the civilian police force, I might have had a bit more sympathy with the new clause, but the truth is that there is no evidence to that effect.
The hon. Gentleman referred to workload. The greater workload among civilian police is a negative, not a positive. I was responsible for prompting a restructure of the Metropolitan police’s rape command, not least because I became aware in my role as deputy mayor for policing that there was a huge backlog of rape cases awaiting investigation. As I have said before, the longer the wait, the less likely a conviction. The fact that a civilian police officer might be handling a caseload of 26 to 35 cases is a bad thing, not a good thing. It means that quite a lot of cases are not getting the attention that they need. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s concern and certainly share it, but, for all those reasons, it is critical that the military police retain the ability, and therefore must have the training and expertise, to deal with these cases.
Mr Jones
I hear what the hon. Members for Keighley and for North West Hampshire said. However, the fact of the matter is that it is wrong for anything to be in place that ensures that victims—even if it is just one case—do not come forward because they think that the service police are part of the military chain of command, although I accept what the hon. Member for Keighley said about the separation of the two. We will look at the matter in more detail.
I also accept what the hon. Member for North West Hampshire said about resources and the pressures on individual police officers dealing with multiple cases, but expertise must be an issue. If someone investigates, for example, one rape or sexual assault allegation only every two or three years, even with the best training in the world, their expertise could be limited compared with someone who does so regularly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Review of compensation available to veterans suffering from mesothelioma
‘Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission a review of how former members of the armed forces who have contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in the course of their military service are compensated, and must lay the report of this review before both Houses of Parliament.’—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 6 addresses an issue that has been raised recently on the Floor of the House—the treatment of veterans and service personnel suffering from mesothelioma. Anyone who has met individuals who suffer from this terrible asbestos-related cancer will know that those diagnosed have not only a short lifespan, but a horrible and cruel death. I have experienced this as a former trade union official dealing with asbestos victims in the engineering and shipbuilding industries.
Kris Hopkins
Again, I find myself recognising the sentiment and the importance of this issue. It is important to recognise that the new clause would introduce an obligation on the Defence Secretary to instigate a review of compensation for veterans with this asbestos-related cancer, but our view is that such a step does not require legislation and, in fact, will be overtaken by events.
As the hon. Member for North Durham said, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), responded to an Adjournment debate on 19 November—the day after the last gathering of this Committee—and clearly indicated that he would speak to and report to ex-service organisations in the coming weeks; in fact, December was what he indicated. I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the long period before this terrible disease manifests itself and the short life expectancy creating an urgency for the Minister to respond, but the fact that he has said that, within the next few weeks, he will meet those service organisations and specifically respond on the issue of lump-sum moneys is very important. This matter is already on the record. Therefore, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am in favour of the new clause that the hon. Member for North Durham has tabled. This is a simple issue of inequity, and I am happy to hear that there seems to be consensus on that. After speaking in the Adjournment debate last week, I received an email from a veteran who is affected by mesothelioma. That very dignified gentleman knows that nothing can be done to help him now, but he urged me to ensure that we do everything we can to try to help others in his position. It is incumbent on us to listen to such individuals and to try to resolve this unfair situation, which causes people very great difficulty at the end of their lives.
I agree with the hon. Member for Keighley that time is an issue. If things are overtaken by events, that is great and to be encouraged—so be it—but we were assured, with all kinds of positive reasons, that these matters would be resolved quickly, and they have not yet been resolved. I am sure that there is a will to resolve them, but I think that supporting the new clause is a sensible and useful way to ensure that we move forward to support these veterans.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley, who has clearly laid out the Government’s position that this is under review and, we hope, will get some positive direction. One of the most positive Acts of the previous Parliament, of course, faced up to the scale of mesothelioma concern in the country. This involves a huge number of people. Of course, when someone is diagnosed with mesothelioma, that is an incredibly shocking piece of news, but it is followed by a very short tail. Most sufferers will last for only between 18 and 24 months after diagnosis, so making that time as comfortable as possible is vital and knowing that one’s family will be looked after in the event of one’s passing is hugely significant.
I want to mention the Royal British Legion’s rightful campaign on this subject, in the hope that the Government will respond directly to it. It advocates that every veteran should be offered a choice between receiving a traditional war disablement pension or a lump-sum payment, obviously recognising that there is a huge disparity in the family and financial circumstances of those who suffer. That idea certainly seems to have a logic to it. The Royal British Legion provides the practical example of a 63-year-old civilian sufferer, who can receive about £180,000 in compensation under the Government’s wide-ranging diffuse mesothelioma scheme, whereas a veteran of the same age can receive at present as little as £32,000 if they have no spouse or partner to pass their compensation on to.
In the light of that, I support my hon. Friend’s new clause. I acknowledge that the Government realise that there is a disparity in the current situation. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those who have served in some of the most difficult circumstances, who may survive a conflict only to have the choices made by previous Governments rendered unto them 30 or 40 years hence, so I hope that the Government will give us some positive news on the matter in the near future.
Kit Malthouse
The new clause is close to my heart, not least because Catherine Crawford, the first and last chief executive of the Metropolitan Police Authority, with whom I worked closely and who became a great friend, died of mesothelioma only last year. She had spent her career in government buildings and did not know where she contracted the disease from, but somewhere along the line, she did.
I am, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley in not supporting the new clause, because it is, quite frankly, a bit vague. Instead of commissioning a review without any notion of independence, where it would be commissioned from or what the timeframe would be—it would have to be commissioned within 12 months, but it could take 10 years after that to complete—I would much rather that other weapons in Parliament’s armoury, such as Adjournment debates, Back-Bench business and all the rest of it, were used to press the Government into swift action, and such action has been promised. I acknowledge that the Government have been a bit slow to deal with this issue, but I am not sure that putting something into legislation adds anything to the urgency. Nothing would necessarily happen post the review; the Government would not be compelled to take any action after the review.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for North Durham would consider withdrawing the new clause in the hope that he might return to the issue on Report. That would give the Government a window to announce what they are actually going to do. If the matter comes before the whole House, he may find that there is more sympathy for his proposal if the Government have not laid out any specific plans.
Mr Jones
I am not in the habit of helping the Government, but I think that the hon. Member for North West Hampshire makes a constructive suggestion. We have debated the new clause today, and when we discuss this issue again on the Floor of the House, we will be interested to see whether the Government have moved forward as the hon. Member for Keighley has suggested that they might. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Homosexual acts no longer to constitute grounds for discharging a member of HM armed forces (No. 2)
‘(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 146(4), omit the words “discharging a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces from the service or” and the words “or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances,”.
(3) In section 147(3), omit the words “discharging a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces from the service or” and the words “or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances,”.’—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 is a bit of tidying up of legislation, but it is an important one. Reference is still made in law to a homosexual act being deemed to be a criminal offence, but no reference is made to heterosexual acts. It might be useful if I gave the Committee some history to explain how we have got to this position.
Sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contain provisions relating to a homosexual act constituting grounds for the discharge from service of a member of the armed forces. The 1994 Act repealed provisions relating to male homosexual acts and the armed forces in the Sexual Offences Act 1967. Homosexuality is clearly no longer an instant dismissal offence, and I think that that is broadly supported as a move forward. However, the legislation still contains that reference to a homosexual act, but there is no reference to the fact that heterosexual activity could lead to someone being dismissed from the armed services.
I am not suggesting that anyone who engages in homosexual acts in an inappropriate way while in service could not be dismissed. Likewise, anyone who is involved in heterosexual activity in service in an inappropriate way could also be dismissed. That is not the case at the moment, since reference is only to homosexual activity.
The purpose of sections 146(4) and 147(3) was explained by Viscount Cranborne at Third Reading as,
“to put on the face of the Bill a statement to the effect that the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the services and the Merchant Navy would not affect their ability to discharge homosexuals”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 1994; Vol. 557, c. 190.]
Since that has now been superseded, quite rightly, there is no need to have it in the current law. Getting rid of this from the statute book would be a way forward, so that we are not, in any way, discriminating against anyone because of their sexuality.
Kris Hopkins
I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for North Durham again.
Kris Hopkins
I know. It is important to lay out where we are and why we cannot support the new clause, but to provide a solution to the situation as well. Our view is that sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the 1994 Act are redundant. They have no legal effect and their existence is inconsistent with the Department’s policy on homosexuality within Her Majesty’s armed forces, and the Government’s equality and discrimination policies more generally. Although there is no reason to retain these provisions, the wording of both sections 146(4) and 147(3) applies not only to the discharge of members of Her Majesty’s armed forces but to the dismissal of members of the crew of a UK merchant ship. The latter is not restricted to defence purposes. Accordingly, it would appear unfair and inconsistent to amend the provisions in the 1994 Act only on behalf of the armed forces.
We are therefore seeking an appropriate legislative vehicle that would enable sections 146(4) and 147(3) to be repealed in full. One option would be to refer these provisions to the Law Commission, recommending that they give consideration to including them in the next statute law repeals report. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Mr Jones
I hear what the hon. Member for Keighley says. It is a constructive way forward, but it is wrong to have such legislation still on the statute book. I do not want to press this to a vote, but I reserve the right to bring it back later, on Report. If the Government would produce with their agreed position on moving forward, that would be helpful. I do not think there is any disagreement that this needs dealing with, but if we had a suggested route forward, via the Law Commission or by some other method, it would be helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
The final question I must put is that I do report the Bill to the House. I thank everybody for their work and their contributions. It has been a pleasure. It has been my first and maybe not my last Bill Committee. I thank the officials for their support, and Anna, in particular, for enabling me to be an effective Chairman.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Housing and Planning Bill (Sixth sitting)
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
We will start with the question that clause 6 stand part of the Bill. Members will be aware that we did not debate that at our previous sitting. Since then, the Opposition have tabled an amendment to remove the clause from the Bill, and although it is not selectable, the subject can be debated.
Clause 6
Compliance directions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alan.
The Opposition propose that clause 6 does not stand part of the Bill, for reasons I will outline. Committee members will recall that, the last time we met, we had an interesting discussion, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, as to why we should remove the clause to make the Bill more palatable.
My hon. Friend made a number of excellent suggestions for amending the Bill. She highlighted the fact that there are many strong arguments, which have been put forward by a number of bodies, as to why there should be local input into decisions about the number of starter homes that are necessary. She mentioned that there is a dramatic variation in housing needs across the country—something shown time and again by various witnesses from local authorities, which had diverse local requirements.
My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that the Secretary of State could distort a local housing market if too many starter homes were put up too quickly. She cited the Home Builders Federation evidence, which observed:
“There is potential for market distortion if the numbers of Starter Homes that ministers are targeting to be built actually come onto the market. The effect is likely to be highly localised and could impact upon the saleability of units on new sites”.
That highly localised effect on the housing market shows again the importance of local consideration of planning and building.
The mix of tenures was also raised. There should be a mix of homes, and that should be determined by what is necessary. That should be done at the discretion of local authorities, which are best suited to appraise local needs.
Although the Minister said in our previous sitting that the Secretary of State would have to give reasons for issuing a compliance directive, we are not sure that there are sufficient safeguards to protect local decision making. Moreover, we do not feel that that is a sufficient safeguard to protect councils from being judged as failing when non-delivery could be outside their control. Councils must work in and for the best interests of local people. They will be the ones that are judged as not having met local need, when in fact matters could be outside their control. As the National Housing Federation points out, local authorities must have
“freedom to plan to meet objectively assessed local housing need in their area, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework. This should include the ability to plan for Starter Homes, shared ownership and rented housing…based on the evidence in their Strategic Housing Market Area Assessment. This would ensure that Starter Homes are built, but that the balance between Starter Homes and other forms of affordable housing would vary according to what best meets the needs of local people”.
That view was echoed by the Local Government Association, which stated:
“Councils need the powers and flexibility to shape the supply of genuinely affordable homes to meet needs of different people in their area, in line with their local plan and the National Planning Policy Framework”.
In the face of repeated expert advice that clearly puts a strong emphasis on the significance of localism and responding to local need, why are the Government moving forward with a clause that undermines those things? The Minister gave us reassurances about the need for clause 6 to remain, but they were not strong enough. That is why we now propose that it does not stand part of the Bill, so that local authorities can determine the mix of tenures and the different forms of affordable housing that are necessary for their areas.
The clause is problematic not only because it takes decision making from local authorities, but because there is a lack of clarity in terms of determining how compliance directives will be necessary. The clause would allow the Secretary of State to issue a compliance directive to local planning departments if they do not adequately carry out their functions in relation to starter homes, but it does not clearly demonstrate how that adequacy will be judged or even what it means. Does it relate to a certain number of starter homes based on population, on those who have registered an interest in the scheme or the area, or on the median incomes of an area and house prices to reflect how many could feasibly afford a starter home? We simply do not know and the ambiguity leaves the decision entirely in the hands of the Secretary of the State, with no formal guidance.
The concern about the lack of clear monitoring rules and guidelines is only made worse by subsection (1)(b), which appears to give the Secretary of State personal powers to issue a compliance directive when he does not like the policies in a local plan. It is extraordinary that the Government are taking away from local decision makers in such a way, apparently basing things entirely on the Secretary of State’s decision.
The explanatory notes make things no clearer:
“If a local authority is failing to comply with its starter homes duties and has a policy contained in a local development document which is incompatible with these duties then the Secretary of State may make a compliance direction directing that the incompatible policy should not be taken into account when certain planning decisions are taken.”
There is no real, tangible explanation of what that vague “incompatible” means.
What is the point of having a local plan based on local needs if in reality the Secretary of State may override it? The clause has the potential to be incredibly damaging to localism and any devolved planning powers. The assurances of the Minister have not been enough to convince us that local decision making has been safeguarded. For those reasons, we are moving that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
It is again a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
I will outline matters briefly, because people want to make progress today. The clause provides for a compliance direction to be issued by the Secretary of State if the local authority is failing adequately to comply with its starter homes duties and if it has a policy contained in a local development document, such as a local plan, that is incompatible with such duties.
Any compliance direction would say that the incompatible policy must not be taken into account when certain planning decisions are taken. It must set out the Secretary of State’s reasons for making the direction and must be published. A copy must be given to the local planning authority and the direction will remain in force until revoked by a further direction given by the Secretary of State, therefore ensuring that local authorities have full understanding, as well as a chance to make their case.
The compliance direction will be used only in limited circumstances. I am happy to put that on the record. It is for when the local planning authority is in breach of its starter homes duties. As outlined a number of times on Thursday, the chapter is very much about creating a new product, recognising the challenges for first-time buyers and the Government’s determination to do what we can to help them reach their aspiration to own their own homes.
The duty to promote starter homes and to grant planning permission in accordance with the starter homes requirement is a statutory requirement. If the local authority does not do that, it will be in breach of the law. The compliance direction mechanism is designed to provide a clear sanction if the duty is breached. The Secretary of State will decide whether to issue the direction based on the information in the monitoring reports that are required to be produced under clause 5.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead for not hearing more of her opening remarks. Will the Minister give us a sense of the type of situation in which he or the Secretary of State would feel that a compliance direction was needed? Clearly, one would be if no starter homes had been set in motion, but suppose five had been set in motion? Would that require a compliance direction? Or would the Minister expect 10 or 100 before a direction was issued?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman was unable to join us last week, but I suggest that he looks back at Hansard for last Thursday’s debate, where he can see exactly what we outlined on our expectations for starter homes. He may link that to what I have said in the past few minutes.
Starter homes are a national priority to help a generation into home ownership. We therefore need to ensure that all local planning authorities are on board with delivery. The compliance direction will apply to an incompatible policy in a local development document, which does not include neighbourhood plans or the London plan. It will mean that the incompatible policy may not be taken into consideration as part of the determination of planning applications.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 7 sets out the meanings of the terms used in the starter homes clauses. It makes clear what the terms mean in the application of the clauses and will assist with their implementation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Definitions
Mr Thomas
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 8, page 5, line 1, at end insert—
“or
community-led housing schemes as defined at Schedule [New Schedule 1: community-led housing schemes]”
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Given your huge experience, you will know the disadvantage that Back-Bench Opposition Members are at in comparison with the massed ranks of the Government with all their civil servants behind them. In saying that, I hope you will protect me from any bullying by Government Members.
In moving amendment 88, I probe whether the definitions in clause 8 are sufficiently tightly drafted to allow the full range of would-be self-builders and custom house builders to benefit, while not creating loopholes for bigger beasts of the housing market to exploit.
It is interesting that the Conservative party, which is so committed to the free market, should be so actively seeking to meddle with the free market in the clause by creating almost a mini-market within the overall housing market. However, it would be a digression to go down that route.
To give the Committee a flavour of my interest in the clause and to amplify my concern, it might be worth imagining a situation where every member of the Committee lives in the same planning authority area—say Harrow, which is probably the best planning authority in the country and certainly the best place to live, with some very high-quality political representation, especially in the western part of the planning authority area. Let us assume we all live in the same planning authority area and have done so for a number of years. We are all living in houses that we do not see as suitable for our needs going forward and so want to be part of building a better home for each of us. We all get along famously, so we decide to work together and support each other’s efforts to get a better home.
If we were to build our homes under the self-build route, they would clearly, by their very nature, be somewhat different. I am a new man at the moment—I appreciate that is a controversial concept and my partner is not necessarily a supporter of it. As a new man, I do not need anywhere to watch the television. I simply do not have the time any longer to do that, because of childcare arrangements.
My property would be, by definition, very different from those of other Committee members who are not new men or do not have childcare responsibilities. The Minister looks like a man who would want a hot tub in his self-build property. Again, his would be a very different property from those that the rest of us want. The hon. Member for South Norfolk is the very definition of the type of Member who would want to create a mini-castle. Certainly, he would want a wide, sweeping drive to accommodate all his cars.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Although my mother used to worry when, as a small child, I expressed the desire to live in a castle, I do not want my self-build to be a castle, but I do want it to contain a library based on the one in Eastnor castle in Herefordshire, which I recommend that the hon. Gentleman visits.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that kind intervention. I will come to the subject of libraries shortly.
I think I have demonstrated that, if we were to go down the self-build route, each of us would build a different type of property. Nevertheless, we might need to work together to achieve that. We might need the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire-ish way, I believe—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle. [Interruption.] I am a London MP—bear with me. We might need the help of my hon. Friend, with all his council experience, to approach the local planning authority. He knows how planning authorities work, so he could register our collective self-interest. That is one small way in which we could work together, although we would nevertheless build the properties ourselves.
If we were to go down the custom build route, we might again need my hon. Friend to register our interests with the planning authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who is not in her place, has experience of the planning system and would be useful in helping us to find custom house builders. Again, Government and Opposition Members would probably require different types of custom house builder. I gently suggest that Opposition Members would need larger libraries, because we are much more committed to evidence-based policy. The hon. Member for South Norfolk probably does not need such a big library. That is one difference in the type of specialist custom house builders that we might want.
Given the harmonious relationships that have developed in this Committee under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, we could all come together to form a housing co-operative—let us call it the Toffs and Oiks Housing Co-operative—to build a new series of properties in which to live. However, would that qualify under clause 8? Could we register an interest with the local planning authority to build homes?
Why might we go down the housing co-operative route, as opposed to the traditional self-build route or the traditional custom build route? It might be easier to raise finance if we were acting collectively and sharing risk. That might make us more attractive to a potential financier. We might build the houses ourselves or contract them out and design how the properties look, but it would be hard to describe that as traditional self-build or traditional custom build. I seek to probe the Minister about whether a housing co-operative would qualify under the terms of the Bill. Indeed, many rightly acknowledge that the self-build and custom build parts of the housing development market are niche areas. The Government and, indeed, the Opposition, rightly want to see that part of the housing market becoming less niche and more mainstream. Again, the housing co-operative movement—which shares many parts of the definition that one might use to describe a self-build or custom build property—is regarded as quite niche. It may be covered by the definitions in clause 8, but at the moment it is not clear.
The Chair
Before I call Mr Bacon, let me tell Members that we have the opportunity of going further down this route towards Valhalla, as the hon. Member for Harrow West has pointed out, but I indicated to the hon. Member for Easington a bit earlier that he could take his jacket off, and it was remiss of me not to have made the same announcement to all Members. If they wish to do so, they may.
Mr Bacon
Thank you for that advice, Sir Alan. I feel that on such an important subject I ought to be wearing a dinner jacket, like Lord Reith reading the news.
It was a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Harrow West—albeit at such length that the pleasure was alloyed—but I do not think his amendment is necessary. The Bill provides for “associations of individuals”, so the question one has to ask is: what would a court say about a housing co-operative in such a case? Would a court deem a housing co-operative to be an association of individuals? I think it would.
Mr Thomas
Perhaps I should have gone on a little longer and drawn the hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 8(2) which, referencing his own Private Member’s Bill, talks about omitting,
“bodies corporate that exercise functions on behalf of associations of individuals”.
That is one of the things that initially triggered my concern that housing co-operatives or community-led housing might, inadvertently perhaps, be affected by the definition in proposed new subsection (A1).
Mr Bacon
I would certainly not want to omit housing co-operatives inadvertently. I will listen with interest to what the Minister says about that, but it seems unlikely that they would not be regarded as associations of individuals.
May I say how important housing co-operatives can be? The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed to activities on the continent, such as at Almere in the Netherlands and in Berlin. As the founder of the all-party parliamentary group on self-build, custom and community housebuilding and place-making, I strongly support community activity to increase the number of dwellings, because the system as a whole has failed for 50 years. Volume house builders as a whole have failed to cause supply to rise to meet demand, as have too many of our housing associations, because while some are nimble and innovative, some are bloated. An official recently said to me that trying to contact a person in a large housing association was like sticking a knitting needle into blubber: it went on and on and he could not get a response of any kind.
Mr Thomas
I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I have experience of a housing association that is incredibly difficult to get hold of and is not treating some of my constituents as well as it should. He supports co-operatives as one part of the self-build and custom house building world, so does he want the Minister to be clear that they will be covered under the terms of the definition?
Mr Bacon
Yes, I do. In Berlin, people have come together, often led by an architect who has identified the site, people and finance, and worked in co-operation with the local authority, very much in a community-driven way, to produce housing co-operatives that people join. By becoming a member, they are entitled to a dwelling. As the co-operative grows, they can move to a different dwelling that is the right size for them—as they get older or become members of larger families—and they can continue to do that throughout their lives. I therefore support the idea of housing co-operatives.
I will correct the hon. Gentleman on one thing, though. To take the example of Housing People Building Communities in Liverpool, which I visited recently, he described owners as active, albeit collective. Of course it is possible to have co-operative action by communities that results in individual ownership, and that is what has happened in Liverpool. I support the idea of housing co-operatives being covered by the Bill. The difference I have with him is that I think they already are.
Brandon Lewis
As I said on Thursday, I always think it best to start by outlining what we agree on before moving to what we perhaps do not agree on. I agree with the opening comments of the hon. Member for Harrow West. I am sure we agree that he believes that he is the best representation that Harrow could have. I say gently that I hope that his other opening remarks were meant with some tongue in cheek, because otherwise Conservative Members will have found them pretty offensive.
I am sure that all members of the Committee will have spent many hours during mornings, evenings and weekends working through issues behind the Bill to ensure that what we are presenting will be transformational in how we make housing supply and increase home ownership. If the hon. Gentleman looks back at Thursday’s Hansard report—I appreciate that he was not with us on Thursday, as he obviously had other commitments—he will find that amendments were withdrawn and ideas were taken on board from both sides of the Committee in that proper tradition of working together where we can agree in the best interests of all. In that spirit, I hope to give him and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk some words of comfort and reassurance about what the clause seeks to do.
The Government very much support community-led housing schemes, and the hon. Gentleman was right to outline the importance of co-operatives and those schemes. His amendment would add housing built by community-led housing groups for the good of the community to the clause. However, the individuals who first live in such properties would not necessarily have an input in their design, and I argue that that is not self-build or custom house building, nor should it be considered as such.
Where a group of people want to build or commission their own homes next to each other to enable them to live as a community, legislation already allows for that, as my hon. Friend rightly identified. Indeed, supporting such people in the way we see elsewhere around the world, and in Europe in particular, is the reason why “associations of individuals” is included in the definition, as he rightly pointed out. I categorically assure him that groups of people coming together in whatever format—whether loosely and informally or in a more formal organisation—to develop a genuine self or custom build property into whose design and build they have an input is intended to be included in the definition.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks thus far, but I wonder whether I could push him a little further. When he writes to every planning authority—as I have no doubt he will—perhaps he can be clear that housing co-operatives in the format that he has described, using the language that he has used, would be covered under the definition of self-build and custom house building. They would then benefit, crucially, from being able to indicate their interest and from being on the register and would have to be contacted by the planning authority if suitable land became available.
Brandon Lewis
Obviously our words in the House are widely read by people far and wide, and I am sure they will pick up on that. In any communications that we send out following Royal Assent, I will very happily make it clear that any group of people coming together, if they are genuinely looking at custom building and self-building and having an input into the design, where the owner and occupier will have been part of the process, would qualify as custom build and self-build.
I would go a bit further in qualifying that. Traditional community-led housing schemes can include members who are not interested in self-build community house building and therefore would not benefit from joining the register. In those cases, I do not see why individuals within community groups who are interested in self-build and custom house building cannot join together, as individuals or a group, or, if they wish for land close to each other, as an association of individuals, as the qualification outlines.
The overriding rationale of self-build and custom house building is that the person who lives in the finished property has a choice over the design of that property. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk spoke powerfully about this on Second Reading. As he outlined, this is also about moving the housing market. Even where a developer is involved, it is about moving into building property that is focused on the customer’s needs, with the customer being involved in that outline, rather than the traditional build method that we have seen previously in this country.
Mr Bacon
Because I was speaking to the amendment of the hon. Member for Harrow West, I did not deal directly with the point the Minister is now making, about the effect of clause 8(1) on the definition of “wholly or mainly” in proposed new section 1(A2) of the 2015 Act. I would be happy to have your guidance, Sir Alan, on whether now is the appropriate time to intervene on the Minister on this point, or whether I should do so in the clause 8 stand part debate. I have a query for the Minister, although I do not wish to amend anything.
The Chair
There probably will be a stand part debate on this clause, so you could talk about it then.
Brandon Lewis
I look forward to that conversation with my hon. Friend.
Let me finish by saying that although we all see the benefit and goodness of a community group building for unnamed individuals or for the greater good of the community—it is incredibly worthwhile in itself, and I am sure all of us across the House would encourage it—it is not self-build and custom build. For that reason, I hope the hon. Member for Harrow West will withdraw his amendment.
Mr Thomas
I welcome the Minister’s efforts to move at least partly in my direction. There are opportunities for us to discuss the state of the housing co-operative world more generally through other amendments that I have tabled. Let me gently raise again with the Minister my concern about clause 8(2) and the example I gave of the Lewisham initiative, where a local community land trust working with the council is coming together to provide homes at local level. There are members of the land trust who want to live in the community-led housing scheme, but it is effectively a corporate body being set up to do this work. Would it be covered?
Brandon Lewis
To qualify for self-build and custom build, individuals who are going to own and live in the property need to be part of the design and production of that property. If the organisation is commissioning properties for people who are not part of the design panel, they would not by definition be self-build and custom build.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for that. In which case, helpful as his comments have been, it sounds to me as though some housing co-operatives, but not all, could be covered by the clause. Given the forces arrayed against me, I will perhaps accept the Minister’s words of encouragement for one part of the housing co-op sector and return to my concerns about the need to support the wider housing co-op sector later in proceedings on the Bill.
Amendment 88 was very much a probing amendment. I say gently to the Minister that this is a very bad Bill overall, but, in accordance with the spirit of Committee proceedings, we can make it slightly less bad through our debates; I hope my remarks are seen in that spirit. I welcome at least part of the Minister’s remarks, which were helpful. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 8, page 5, line 29, at end insert “and without unreasonable cost”.
This amendment would protect authorities in cases where the provision of access to a public highway, connections for electricity, water and waste water and other services required to ensure a plot of land is fully serviced would entail excessive cost.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. In the same spirit that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West have made clear, the amendment seeks to improve the legislation on a matter where there is a large degree of consensus. It would ensure that, in strengthening the role of local planning authorities to make plots of land available for self-build and custom build, the Bill did not place disproportionate or unreasonable burdens upon those authorities. It therefore probes the Minister on what measures will ensure that local authorities are not overburdened when it comes to the costs of servicing plots of land.
With your indulgence, Sir Alan, I will briefly set out the Opposition position on self-build and custom build, to aid our debate. Four and a half years ago, the then Minister for Housing, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), heralded a “self-build revolution”; yet now, despite encouraging signs, that revolution has still failed to materialise. According to some industry surveys, over 50% of people in this country would consider building their own home if given the opportunity to do so. An Ipsos MORI survey has suggested that approximately 7 million people would consider doing so within the next 12 months. We therefore know that there is significant unmet demand in this area.
No accurate figures exist, but estimates produced by AMA Market Research suggest that self-build and custom build output remains steady, at between 7% and 10% of the overall number of new homes built each year, with self-build completions still below a peak of around 14,000 units in 2007. As a number of hon. Members have already suggested, in comparison with continental parallels, the UK’s performance in this area remains poor. In Canada, Germany, France, Sweden and Ireland, self-build or custom build often accounts for more than 50% of the market, and in Austria it accounts for more than 80%. Crucially, in those countries building one’s own home is not just the preserve of a privileged few, as there is a strong tradition of self-build and custom build right across the social spectrum. In this country, unfortunately, self-build is still seen as a niche pursuit for intrepid enthusiasts or an elite club that is open to a small minority able to fund the kind of ambitious projects made famous by “Grand Designs” that win awards from the Royal Institute of British Architects. That needs to change, and we hope the Bill will help to achieve that.
The Opposition firmly support the Government’s aim of getting the self-build and custom build sector to scale, in order to progress towards building the homes that our people need. Self-build and custom build can provide a lifeline for those currently shut out of home ownership, as well as an alternative—some of the cases we have heard about have made this clear—for those seeking more collective approaches to meeting housing need. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West gave a number of good examples in that regard. A strong custom build sector would open up new opportunities for medium-sized and smaller housebuilders. As the Minister has rightly said, in putting the customer at the heart of the process, the sector can expand choice, support innovation, promote energy efficiency, drive up quality and strengthen communities—we know that people who take this route are more likely to have a longer-term stake in the homes that they shape.
Taken in the round, the sector has the potential to correct some of the systemic flaws in the housing market. For that reason, we supported the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 and are broadly supportive of clauses 8 to 11, which build on that. At this point, it would be remiss of me not to mention and commend the work of the hon. Member for South Norfolk in bringing this issue to the fore in both this and the previous Parliament.
The interplay between the three factors at work for self-build and custom build—land, finance and planning—is complicated. There is general agreement that more needs to be done, especially about the lack of suitable accessible plots of land to build on and about facilitating the assembly of such land to allow for the scale of sites needed—of 100-plus plots—to deliver custom build economically. The Lyons review, which was commissioned by the Labour party, identified that as a significant barrier that would need to be addressed and pointed to the need to take a more innovative approach to the use of land more widely if the sector is to realise its potential.
It remains to be seen whether the measures in the Bill will deliver the 20,000 or more self-build and custom-build units a year that the Government seek to realise. It would be useful if the Minister set out what levels of demand were registered in each of the 11 vanguard authorities set up to trial the full right to build. We on the Opposition Benches suspect that the results may have been mixed, but we believe that the strength of clauses 8 to 11 lie principally in the strong signal they will send to local authorities to make this sector a priority.
We supported the creation of registers in the 2015 Act, but in building upon them, as this Bill does, and inserting new definitions and making related amendments, as clause 8 does, we want to ensure that the Bill does not place unreasonable burdens on already over-burdened local authorities. We know that the Government share that aim, and that is what amendment 84 seeks to do.
Mr Thomas
Before my hon. Friend gets into the substance of the concern about the clause, which he has helpfully set in context, he will remember, having read the Hansard extracts from the debate on the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Norfolk, that our then housing spokeswoman, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), raised concerns about access to finance for those wanting to go down the self-build route. Might my hon. Friend encourage the Minister to give us an update on the extent to which finance is genuinely available for self-build and custom house building, and, indeed, the housing co-operative field, which is covered by the self-build and custom house building definitions in the Bill?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Access to finance is a very real issue—it is perhaps less of an issue than land and land assembly, but it is an issue none the less. Amendments 81, 82 and 83 will touch on that area, and I hope we will hear from the Minister in response.
The concern that the Bill might place unreasonable burdens on local authorities was touched on by a number of witnesses in written and oral evidence to the Committee. For example, the chair of the board of the Planning Officers Society, Mike Kiely, raised such concerns in his written submission, in which he stated that the right-to-build provisions could place a considerable additional burden on local authorities. Similarly, the CPRE expressed the concern that the new duty may be too onerous in many areas. If the Bill is to achieve its objective of scaling up the sector, it is vital that local authorities view prospective self-build and custom house builders as partners in helping to meet housing need, not as a burden.
However, we want to make sure that the Bill strikes the right balance between a common national framework for the full right to build and local discretion. There is a danger that few people will join registers, particularly if they are not well publicised by local authorities or if the eligibility criteria are too restricted. Some in the industry have raised that concern directly with me. If we are to see large numbers join local registers, as I hope we will, we need to make sure that local authorities do not face disproportionate or unduly onerous costs or debts as a result of meeting their new duty. Different parts of the country have different housing and land markets, and there will be some, particularly in rural areas, where the costs of servicing plots could be disproportionate or, in some cases, simply impractical. We know that many local authorities can expect to make a profit from the sale of the land at market value in due course, but there will also be increased costs, as the impact assessment accompanying the Bill makes clear.
We appreciate that, in the short term, the Government intend to provide support to cover the costs of developing the register, under the new burdens doctrine. We would appreciate clarification of whether they intend to provide support to cover all the associated costs of developing and implementing the register, including servicing plots of land, and also whether the fees—which, as part of clause 11, can now be recovered in connection with a duty—can be legitimately used to cover the cost of servicing plots of land for the purposes of the duty.
In instances where the local planning authority is not exempt from the duty, as permitted by clause 10, and where full recovery of costs is not possible, our concern is that some LPAs could be hit with unreasonable costs. We believe it is important to ensure that the costs remain proportionate, whether they are for servicing plots of land in the ownership of the authority itself or whether they relate to cases where the granting of suitable development permission opens the authority up to servicing costs on land owned by others. Where they are not, or where servicing is simply impractical, local authorities have a means of avoiding unreasonable costs and debt.
Amendment 84 would achieve that by revising the proposed definition of “serviced plot of land” to cover land that has access to a public highway and connections to electricity, water, waste water and other services, or that can be provided with those things in specified circumstances, or within a specified period, and without unreasonable cost. That would protect local authorities by allowing them to avoid the high upfront servicing costs that might otherwise be involved in fulfilling the full right-to-build duty in some instances.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman commented on some of the finance issues, particularly relating to mortgage lenders. I should outline in opening my response to him that the Government have made a £150 million custom build serviced plots loan fund available to enable greater access to serviced plots. I encourage local authorities to work with private or third-party partners to take advantage of that funding to move these issues forward.
Last Friday, I visited one of the custom build areas, in Stoke, which is one of the vanguard areas for the pilots, and met a couple of families and visited one of the homes. I spoke to the chief executive of the mortgage lender—a local building society—who outlined his desire to go further with custom build lending. He said small and local building societies were particularly keen to do that, because it gives them a clear niche in the market, where they can be competitive against the larger companies, which obviously want to work on a more national, organised scale. That gives small local lending companies—we all want small and medium-sized enterprises of all types to grow—a real opportunity and a real niche, and I would encourage people to look at that option.
Mr Thomas
I am always encouraged by references to building societies, and I welcome the Minister’s experience. Just to be clear, would the local authority in Stoke have been able to benefit from the fund, to help make self-build plots available? That is the point the Opposition are trying to probe the Minister on.
Brandon Lewis
Yes. That is what I am saying. I would encourage any local authority, particularly as we go forward beyond the vanguards, to work with private and third sector partners or other vehicles—including, potentially, co-operatives if they qualify for self and custom build—to take advantage of that funding. The pilots have been doing some phenomenal work. On average, we had 80 people coming forward on the register in just the first three months of the scheme, which is an indication of the appetite to take this forward. That backs up the comments by the National Custom and Self Build Association, which we support and want to deliver on, building on the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk in his private Member’s Bill, to see that part of the sector double in size over the next few years.
Matthew Pennycook
Will the Minister clarify one important point, because it is instructive as to how the registers will operate? Over what period did those 80 people come forward? How many people are on the local registers in the 11 vanguard plots now? How many joined in the first few months?
Brandon Lewis
As I said, it was 80 in just the first three months, which is a clear indication of the appetite. We want to make sure that we do what we can—partly through the clause and partly through my hon. Friend’s Bill—to double the number of people who take up this opportunity.
I welcome and understand the intention behind the amendment to protect local authorities from excessive costs, but I would argue that a plot of land that required excessive costs to service would probably not be suitable for self or custom building. People wanting to build or commission their own homes usually want to be able to start building as soon as they have purchased their plot of land. That is why the Bill requires local authority to permission suitable serviced land to ensure that the plots are—I use the definition advisedly—shovel-ready. Land that requires excessive costs to put in the basic services should not count as suitable land, and the local authority should seek alternative sites to permission to comply with its duties. For that reason, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Perhaps the Minister could clarify where that is in the Bill. Proposed new section 2A(2) puts a duty on local authorities to
“give suitable development permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land”.
Clause 8 defines what those serviced plots of land are. Nowhere in the Bill can I see that the protection of the kind he has just outlined would be an option for local authorities. For example, if they have a register of 800 people with a mind to build their self-build homes, but have fewer plots than that, they might be forced into bringing impractical or costly serviced plots of land into use. Nothing in the Bill seems to protect local authorities in that way from unreasonable costs.
Brandon Lewis
We do not expect local authorities or developers to make a loss on land, services or on sales for custom building. It is right that the costs incurred for serviced plots should be borne by the custom builders.
Mr Bacon
I wish the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich were wrong, and that there were no protection and nothing in the Bill, and that the overriding duty of local authorities, with no exemptions, were to provide serviced plots at scale, because that would make the biggest difference. In fact, does the Minister agree that the protection sought by the hon. Gentleman is already in clause 10, “Exemption from duty”? There are circumstances—I will ask the Minister about this later—in which the Secretary of State may direct that the local authority is not subject to the duty to provide development permission.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich withdraws his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I have to disagree with the hon. Member for South Norfolk. Clause 10 is about exemption from the duty as a whole, not from the duty to service particular plots of land. He is making a different point. That said, although we might return to the subject, given some of the Minister’s assurances, at this point I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Bacon
I will not detain the Committee for too long. Given that the clause is the first in chapter 2 on “Self-build and custom housebuilding”, I want to say how much I welcome the Government taking further the provisions of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which was my private Member’s Bill, to establish the right to build and to make it a practical reality that serviced plots are delivered at scale, so that we have in this country what has been a great lack: the building of houses as if customers mattered. In most markets supply rises to meet demand. The reason it does not do so in the housing space is that customers are not at the centre, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has said. Historically, customers have not been at the centre as they need to be.
I want to make one other important point about the role of SMEs, which the Minister mentioned in speaking to the previous amendment. Up and down the country many builders merchants provide timber, plumbing and electrical supplies, and other building materials. The purchase of such supplies locally for a house, whether self-built or built to commission by a local builder, does a great deal to put money into a local economy. The Minister probably knows Brett Amphlett of the Builders Merchants Federation, who helped with my Adjournment debate and my private Member’s Bill, and nor would I be surprised if the Minister had visited a builders merchant to find out the good work that such businesses do to promote local sales to keep money in the local economy.
We need a revolution in the way in which housing is done in this country. We have to create a situation in which the supply of houses rises properly to meet demand. A key part of that will be serviced plots at scale, which is why I agreed with the Minister’s earlier comments.
Mr Thomas
It is always great to have a fellow revolutionary in Committee. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should drift over to the Opposition Benches, at least for this part of our proceedings. I agree that self-build and custom house building could be part of a housing revolution, but surely in order for that to happen there has to be much greater access to finance to enable self-build and custom house builders to develop. Does he not agree that the decision by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a levy on building societies to take some of their capital away potentially makes it harder for them to make finance available to self-build and custom house builders? Will he be a revolutionary on that as well?
Mr Bacon
The reason I am not on the Opposition side is that they are not revolutionary enough in this space. When I think about the Labour and Co-operative parties I wonder what could have happened in the past 50 years if the Co-operative party had done to housing what John Lewis has done to retail. I am afraid there has been a lot of talk but not enough action over those 50 years.
Mr Bacon
Since the debate is only on stand part, I shall make just one other point—about the nature of the protection in the new subsection (A2) that clause 8 would insert into section 1 of 2015 Act. Under that subsection, the definition of “self-build and custom housebuilding”
“does not include the building of a house on a plot acquired from a person who builds the house wholly or mainly to plans or specifications decided or offered by that person.”
That is sound. The Minister referred to it in commenting on an earlier amendment. It should prevent gaming of the system by those who want to present their product as if it is a custom house-building product without allowing the customer to specify and determine properly what gets built. Custom house building is not about allowing the customer to choose from a small number of pre-baked designs. It is about the customer deciding and specifying what gets built.
The clause is sound and sufficient. By the way, I sought and obtained the support of the Federation of Master Builders for my private Member’s Bill, but could not even get a meeting with the Home Builders Federation. The fact that the Home Builders Federation thinks that the clause goes too far is sufficient reassurance for me that it is good enough as it stands. None the less, I should welcome the Minister’s reassurance.
The Chair
I apologise to the Minister, because I should really have called him to speak first, before the hon. Members for South Norfolk and for Harrow West, informative though their speeches were.
Brandon Lewis
I would not for a moment presume to speak before my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk on matters of self-build and custom building. His speech on Second Reading showed the House his passion, knowledge and expertise, not least in the pioneering work that he has done to drive an agenda culminating in his private Member’s Bill.
I was honoured and proud to be a small part of that, as the Minister supporting the Bill in Committee. I have a vague memory that we might even have been in this very room—if I remember correctly, we even finished with mince pies. It was a great experience, with cross-party support, and a good example of the House moving things forward. It is important to drive the agenda to bring about big change.
My hon. Friend made a good point in his closing remarks. The clause would for the first time create a clear definition of self-build and custom house building. The creation of a legal definition will enable us to prevent the gaming of the system for which there is arguably potential. We can agree on my hon. Friend’s core point about the customer deciding and specifying what gets built—they should not simply have a say in a standard template.
I have spoken before about the difference between custom building and walking on to a building site to speak to the developer about buying on plot 5, and being told, “As you have got in early you can choose the colour of the kitchen and maybe the carpet colour in the bedrooms.” That is not self-build or custom building, in which the customer is a part of the design process.
My hon. Friend is also right that the measure helps us to do something—although as the hon. Member for Harrow West pointed out, we are playing just one part—for small builders, particularly on access to finance, including through the builders finance fund and by working with mortgage lenders. He made a fair point about making lending accessible to people who want to enter the field. That is why I stressed the point about people who want to work with small, local societies that have a key part to play, where there are niche opportunities and expertise. That helps small and medium-sized businesses.
If my hon. Friend’s work does anything, it will drive and grow the market, and the larger it gets the more attractive it will become to lenders generally, which is a good and helpful thing. Other parts of the Bill will potentially help with access to finance as well, particularly when we think about planning in principle, which we will get to later on. All these things come together to be part of the work we do to help small and medium-sized builders.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I think it does. We will issue guidance that makes it very clear to local authorities and ensures the proposals are driven forward to deliver exactly what we want, which is a clear identifiable ability to get access to land. That is good for small and medium-sized builders. That kind of development will be perfectly suited to a small and medium-sized business. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: I have visited the Builders Merchant Federation’s members and we have benefited from seeing the work they do to support their local communities. Local builders are good for everybody. They drive jobs locally and they tend to build high-quality homes because their reputation relies on it. They build at a good pace, in contrast to the building rate of the larger developers. That is good for all.
Self-build and custom house building includes homes built by people themselves and homes built on behalf of individuals, where professionals are commissioned to do the work by the eventual owner-occupier. The common theme is that the individuals have significant input and choice over their finished home and intend to live in it as their main and sole property.
The second part of the definition is to exclude the sale of off-plan homes, where the developer agrees to minor changes to the property but where the finished home is wholly or mainly the original specification, into which the buyer had no input. That tends to fit the description of most new build properties around the country. However, the definition of self and custom house building includes where someone has bought a shell of a building because they will have significant input into the final internal layout and specification.
Turning to other Members’ points, clause 8 provides the definition of a serviced plot of land. That is land that has access to a public highway and connections for electricity, water and waste, or can be provided with those things in specified circumstances or within a specified period. The clause provides for regulations to amend the definition of “serviced plot of land” by adding further services to the list—I am sure many Members will be thinking about broadband. That allows services such as broadband to be included in the future as and when required.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I want to make a few brief points, because I know time is precious. I have already raised a number of issues that are relevant to my constituency with the Minister in the Adjournment debate. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West and for Greenwich and Woolwich, we are very keen to join the revolution that has been promoted by the hon. Member for South Norfolk. There is common agreement across the Committee about the benefits of not just the grand design but the ambition for self and custom build for everyman that the Bill espouses. Some 100,000 properties over the lifetime of the Parliament seems incredibly ambitious, but will bring many benefits, not least to the building supply sector, in terms of employment and meeting housing needs.
Will the Minister respond to the points raised by my hon. Friends about the obligations to be placed on local authorities? Notwithstanding the existing or potential demand for custom and self-build, there is a concern related to subsection (4) and the various conditions that are placed on the definition of a serviced plot of land. Subsection (4) would define a serviced plot of land as one that,
“(a) has access to a public highway and has connections for electricity, water and waste water, or
(b) can be provided with those things in specified circumstances or within a specified period”.
Will the definition place any additional burdens on local authorities or service providers to connect properties or serviced plots of land at costs which they cannot meet? My own local authority is facing immense costs as a consequence of budget cuts from central Government. On the eve of the spending review, we are making some difficult decisions.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is making a good point. That is what I tried to get at, and we got part of the way there. Does he agree that it would be useful to have, not only a better understanding of what burdens might be placed on local authorities, but an idea of how much money, if any, has been allocated by the Department to cover any new burdens that the Bill will impose on local authorities?
Grahame M. Morris
That is a really good point, which I hope the Minister will address in his closing remarks.
Mr Thomas
A slight alarm bell got set off in my head when the Minister talked about the power to make regulations potentially to include broadband. Harrow is in central London, and one would think it had good access to broadband, but that is not the case at the moment. There is a very mixed performance by BT and other providers. Given that it is Ofcom’s responsibility to direct the provision of broadband, one worries that the Minister might feel gung-ho one day and draft the regulations to include broadband, when it is not the local authority’s responsibility to provide such a crucial facility; it is Ofcom’s or, indeed, the private sector’s responsibility. It would be useful to probe the Minister a little more on his intentions for those future regulations.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Again, the Minister might respond to that point in his concluding remarks.
Finally, I remind the Minister of the Adjournment debate we had at the close of the last Parliament, in which particular problems were highlighted in the former colliery village of Horden in my constituency as a consequence of the withdrawal of the housing association Accent, due to housing market failure. The Minister suggested, on that occasion, that we look at what was termed “homesteading” on a large scale. Sadly, that was not possible, perhaps because of some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for South Norfolk about access to finance, whether the necessary skills and leadership were available at that time and perhaps the lack of a housing co-op with the dynamism to take it forward. I think we will address a little later some of the issues that have arisen since that debate, with rogue landlords and problems as a result of a failure to adequately address that. I would welcome any assurances the Minister can give.
Brandon Lewis
There is obviously a process that the Government go through in agreeing with local government the new burdens that will still apply. With regard to our general position on plots and the cost of servicing them, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I made earlier about our expectations. I am happy to give him further feedback on that over the next few days.
Matthew Pennycook
I would like to press the Minister on the specifics of this. He said that under the new burdens principle, local authorities will be covered. How much has the Department allocated to cover new burdens that might arise as a result of the Bill? That is not in the impact assessment. Has the Department bottomed out that area and allocated actual funds?
Brandon Lewis
I shall be brief, because I know we want to make progress today. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the rest of the clause and, indeed, the comments I made about the previous amendment, he will see that he needs to look at this in the whole, and that will answer his specific question.
Let us look at what we are learning from the vanguards. As I said, I visited Mr and Mrs Sproston in Penkhull in Stoke just last week, and saw the six new homes that have been delivered on that particular site. Under the new administration, the authority wants to deliver the pilot and find a way to make it work for people. It is a really exciting opportunity that both lenders and the residents are getting behind, and I therefore encourage them to go further with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Duty to grant planning permission etc
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 9, page 5, line 42, after “permission”, insert
“to meet housing need generally including”.
This amendment would ensure that authorities give suitable development permission to housing across all tenures, including but not limited to self-build and custom housebuilding, to meet the demand for housing across all tenures in any given authority area.
As a number of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, said a number of times in our previous sittings, the Opposition think the Bill is a lost opportunity to secure the housing mix that we desperately need to solve our country’s housing crisis. The amendment simply seeks to explore why the new duty placed on local authorities to grant sufficient development permissions to meet the demand for self-build and custom build has not been extended to ensure that authorities are granting enough permissions to meet the demand for all other housing tenures.
We could descend into another exchange about historical figures and an attempt to apportion blame but, given that we all want to make progress, I hope we can avoid that. Instead, for the purpose of debating this amendment, I hope the Committee can agree that the housing crisis we face is longstanding, that the problem of grossly inadequate housing supply goes back three decades or more, and that addressing it will require a holistic approach.
The scale of the house building shortfall is stark. More than 200,000 new homes a year are required to keep pace with household formation, and at least 40,000 are required in London. Last year, there were just under 118,000 completions, 18,000 of which were in London. Between 1950 and 1980, when annual completion rates were consistently above 200,000, local authorities and central Government carried out substantial planning and building.
The national planning policy framework already requires that local planning authorities plan for local housing based on need. They need to take into account demand for self-build and custom build when preparing their local plans. The Government clearly believe that the existing planning requirements are not sufficient to provide the numbers of self-build and custom build homes needed to meet the housing crisis, and that a new duty is required to boost supply in that area. The amendment simply seeks to clarify why the same logic and the same type of duty do not apply to other housing tenures.
Amendment 86 would require local authorities to give suitable development permission to meet housing need generally, including, but not limited to, self-build and custom build. It would send a clear signal to all those desperate for a decent, affordable home and those who are concerned that the Bill neglects a number of housing tenures, that the Government are genuinely committed to meeting need across all tenures and are happy to put their intent and measures to realise it on the face of the Bill.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend will remember our debate on clause 8, when a spirit of consensus about the importance of housing co-operatives almost broke out. Were his amendment accepted, it would provide another opportunity for the hon. Member for South Norfolk to demonstrate his revolutionary zeal in support of housing co-operatives. It would go some way towards plugging the shortage of support for the expansion of housing co-operatives, which at all levels—finance, local authority support and builder support—has historically restricted the growth of that important but, sadly, niche part of the housing market.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The amendment simply seeks to draw the Government to put their intentions on the record. If we are going to meet the housing crisis, we require action across all tenures and a housing mix, and co-operative housing is a large part of that. Our concern—we will no doubt come back to this theme—is that the Bill addresses only specific tenures of housing and does not meet housing needs across all tenures.
Mr Thomas
I support my hon. Friend’s amendment. I want to consider the example of a military veteran who does not want to build his own home, engage with a custom house builder or be part of a housing co-operative, but is on the local authority’s register. In most cases, he is due a very long wait. Were my hon. Friend’s amendment accepted, it might give him some hope that, despite the long waiting list that is the reality for most housing authorities, there is a chance that sufficient homes will be built at a faster rate and that he might be allocated a permanent home, albeit not one of the types of tenure that we have discussed in Committee so far—a starter home, a self-build or a custom build. My hon. Friend has put forward a very helpful amendment, and I am interested to hear from the Minister how it would not help, since I assume he will oppose it. Why would the amendment not be in the interests of that military veteran wanting a permanent home, albeit using another form of tenure, for which the Minister has not demonstrated an enthusiasm?
The Chair
Mr Bacon, I apologise: I should have called you last time, but your svelte figure deceived me.
Mr Bacon
Sir Alan, I have lost so much weight, but have a lot more to go. I am afraid I do not agree that the amendment is helpful. I know we are short of time and I would not have spoken were it not for the phrase “to meet housing need”.
Three years ago I was at a conference at the QEII Centre with local authorities and people from the National Self Build Association. Several local authority leaders of different political parties were asking questions. One of them, a Conservative from a wealthy area in the south-east, was very excited because he had already managed to deliver housing, including the cost of the land, for £140,000 to £150,000 per unit. Another local authority leader, whose party I will leave you to guess, Sir Alan, but he was not a Conservative, sat there with hands folded and said he would have nothing to do with it. I chatted to him afterwards and asked why not. He said, “Because it will not help me meet housing need.”
The reason I got into this area and wrote the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is because I am sick and tired of people in local authorities saying they know more about housing need than the people who need housing. That is why it has to change. With respect, I do not think the amendment helps that process. When I want advice on how revolutionary I am, I will certainly not go to the hon. Member for Harrow West. None the less, I give way.
Mr Thomas
I thought we had established consensus but now the hon. Gentleman seeks to spoil the positive atmosphere that was developing between us. People in my constituency come to see me about housing issues. I am sure they are supportive of self-build and custom house build, but they also want the local authority, housing associations or private developers to be able to provide decent homes.
The amendment does not seek to exclude self-build or custom house building; my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich simply seeks to make a range of other tenures available. I counsel the hon. Member for South Norfolk that one failing of revolutionaries in the past has been blinkeredness. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not fall for that weakness on this occasion.
Mr Bacon
What the hon. Gentleman calls blinkeredness, I call focus, and this very good clause would be cluttered up by the amendment. What annoys me is this. We have heard a lot in the Bill and oral evidence about the need for housing need to be taken into account, but there is nothing to stop a local authority that wishes to do so from helping the formation, establishment and growth of a housing co-operative. If local authorities are concerned to protect housing in perpetuity, they can do so by that route, in a way that is exempt from the Bill. There is nothing to stop them doing that.
I have learned two particular things, among several, while studying this area—one about land and one about finance. There is no shortage of land; there is a shortage of accessible land. There is no shortage of finance; there is a shortage of financeable propositions. If local authorities, in conjunction with their local people, were to come forward with good strong business cases for grounding and growing housing co-operatives there would be no shortage of financiers willing to come forward to help finance those propositions. The problem is there has been a shortage—
Brandon Lewis
The amendment is aimed at ensuring that authorities give suitable development permission to housing across all tenures, not just custom build. We heard earlier what that does for a military veteran who is not interested in custom build. I would say a couple of things to that military veteran.
First, they should think about self-build and custom build under these new provisions. I visited a company called Beattie Passive in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, which can develop and help somebody like that learn how to build their own home and deliver it for about £30,000, making it a very affordable proposition.
We come back to the debate we had, in part, on Thursday. Members should read this part of the Bill not as the entire solution to what we want to do to get house building back to where it should be after we inherited an awful legacy, but as part of the work we are doing. The Bill is part of the work and this clause is just part of that. In the same way, starter homes are part of the solution, as is custom build. It builds on the fact that we have exceeded our target for affordable house building over the past four or five years and we are now in the process of the new scheme to deliver 275,000 affordable homes. That is the fastest rate in more than two decades and, of course, in terms of council housing we, as a Conservative-led Government, have a strong record of delivering more in five years than the previous Labour Government did in 13. I am extremely keen that we continue to press ahead with further reforms to the planning system to drive up housing supply.
Through the national planning policy framework and the Localism Act we have put local plans at the heart of the system. Such plans set out a vision and a framework for the future development of the area, including where to locate new housing to meet the needs of the community, but we must be realistic about what can be achieved and when. That applies to the provision of infrastructure, and when sites might come forward for development. Linking this action to the earlier comments, I clarify for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that we recognise that this is a new burden and, as such, money will be set aside. The process for this and the work of local authorities, not least in the 11 vanguard areas, is not complete, so I will not give specific numbers today, but I assure hon. Members that it will be sufficient to ensure that local authorities are not disadvantaged by the introduction of this policy.
Mr Thomas
The Minister has mentioned the 11 vanguard authorities a number of times and has given the example of his recent visit to Stoke. I would welcome hearing whether any of those vanguard authorities are in London. Given the scale of housing need in London, what has the experience been of the vanguard authority in London, if there is one?
Brandon Lewis
I do not think there is a vanguard authority in London, but if the hon. Gentleman is offering to put Harrow up to take this forward for London, I would be very happy to talk to him about that opportunity.
Local planning authorities are already required to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for the market for affordable housing in their area. Although that includes the demand for custom and self-build housing, many local authorities are still not proactively planning to meet the demand for custom and self-build in their area. As we want this area to double over the next few years and to deliver that through this Parliament, it is important that we drive this forward and have that focus, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said. Placing a statutory duty on relevant authorities to commission sufficient serviced plots in line with demand will ensure that pent-up demand is also starting to be addressed. The proposed amendment would set an unrealistic expectation and burden on local planning authorities.
In addition, local planning authorities simply may not have sufficient land available to meet their need, or sufficient landowners willing and able to come forward for development within the allocated time. The proposed requirement in the national planning policy framework to have a five-year supply of deliverable land is a more effective tool. Among the vanguards, it is also interesting to see that areas of natural beauty and national parks were coming forward wanting to play their part. Even in areas where land can be challenging, we have vanguards wanting to do their bit. The Bill is intended to ensure that there is more permissioned serviced land available which is suitable for self-build and custom house building.
As we have heard, the numbers are still low. Custom build still only constitutes around 10% of all housing, and there are considerable benefits in promoting this type of housing further: it will diversify the sector and encourage development on sites which are too small to be of interest to the major house builders and perfectly suited, therefore, to small and medium-sized businesses around the country. It will provide business for the smaller builders and developers who are happy to offer those bespoke properties. Our ambition is to double the figure to 20%. Our proposals seek to embed custom build as a legitimate form of housing supply, as part of the wider housing mix, while still keeping expectations at a manageable scale compared with 100% of housing need. So I ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Aside from the Punch and Judy stuff over the historical record, which I had hoped we could avoid, it was very interesting to hear from the Minister.
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman made. I am very happy to progress on that basis, but when he says that he does not want to play Punch and Judy politics, that does mean that he and the other hon. Members on his side do not quote figures that simply do not give the facts of the housing market that we inherited.
Matthew Pennycook
I simply quoted the figures on how much housing need there is and how much is currently being built and completed, which, as the Minister well knows, falls far short. The hon. Member for South Norfolk raised a very interesting point. He said that powers are already available to local authorities to meet the need for self-build and custom build housing, and that there is the land and the finance.
Mr Bacon
I was not actually talking about self-build and custom build. For the record, I was saying that local authorities which wish to help in the initiation, establishment, grounding, founding and growing of a housing co-operative can do so. There is nothing in law to prevent them from doing that. That is what I was talking about.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. There is nothing to prevent local authorities from doing this, and yet they are not. That is why the Government feel that there is a need for a stronger duty as part of the Bill. The point I sought to make in the amendment is that this also applies to lots of other tenures and types of housing where there is unmet need, and there could be benefits to promoting that type of housing through other measures. I do not think that this is an area on which we shall agree, and we shall no doubt come back to this. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 9, page 5, line 43, after first “the”, insert “effective”.
The amendment would ensure that the demand for self-build and custom house building arising in an authority’s area accurately reflects the number of persons in that area who are in a position to finance their self-build or custom house building project.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 82, in clause 9, page 6, line 15, after “entries”, insert “with effective mortgage finance”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 81.
Amendment 83, in clause 11, page 7, line 32, after “eligibility”, insert “including those who have failed to demonstrate that they have obtained effective mortgage finance”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 81.
Matthew Pennycook
Finance and the financing of self-build and custom build has been mentioned a number of times in this morning’s debate. There is consensus that projects of this type can be extremely problematic to finance. Only certain lenders offer self-build mortgages, so the mortgage market in this area is limited. Despite welcome Government support and recent improvements, it is a sector that is still very much feeling the effect of the exit of many of the larger players in the wake of the credit crunch. Moreover, self-build mortgages—or stage payment mortgages as they are technically known—are not like traditional home loans. Typically, funds are released in four to six stages in arrears after each stage is complete and re-inspected, rather than as a lump sum at the beginning of the project. As a result, while a significant proportion of current self-builders do not need mortgage finance to start building because they have the equity in hand from the sale of their existing home, many still struggle with sufficient capital to move beyond the foundation stage.
If we are to see a marked uplift in self-build and custom build, as both sides of the Committee would like, we will need to remove as much risk as possible from the whole process. Opposition Members hope that clauses 8 to 11 will achieve that, if they succeed in delivering the necessary momentum that this sector needs. We also need to get more lenders entering the self-build market, and to make available more specialist finance products. We hope that the Government will continue to explore what can be done to reduce the considerable constraints that still face those interested in securing finance for this type of home.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to make finance available. If I may, I will bring him back to my earlier intervention, when I said that the proposed levy on building societies that the Chancellor wants to impose risks limiting the amount of capital that building societies can lend for mortgage finance, and potentially makes it harder for those building societies to offer finance for self-build housing. It would be helpful to hear a little from the Minister about how he will address that particular problem, and whether there are any conversations going on between the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury to try to offset this problem; otherwise, the Minister’s very laudable aim of an expansion of the self-build sector might be curtailed by difficulties in accessing finance.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a specific weakness in that area, but there is also the wider problem of access to finance for self-build and custom build. To give the Government their due, they have put support in place, but it would be useful to hear what more is currently being done to ensure that more of those who want to take this route can be supported to do so. Alongside efforts to make finance more accessible, the Opposition believe that, given the burdens the Minister recognised that the new, full right-to-build duty places on local planning authorities, there is a case for ensuring that the authorities in any given authority area reflect the effective, rather than notional, demand for self and custom build. By that, we mean the number of people or groups who are in a position to fund their project past foundation stage rather than the sum total of individuals or groups who are vaguely interested in taking that route and may begin the process of exploring whether they can access the necessary finance some years down the line.
Clause 11 already provides for the entering of persons who have failed to meet particular eligibility conditions in a separate part of the register and makes it clear that further refinements to the eligibility criteria may be brought forward in regulations. However, our amendments would make it clear that those on the register who genuinely seek to build or commission their main home and have the finances to do so should be entered in a separate part.
Amendments 81, 82 and 83 would ensure that local authorities are required to provide suitable planning permission on serviced plots of land for those with a reasonable prospect of building their own home in the immediate future. It would not exclude those who are yet to demonstrate that they have obtained effective mortgage finance from the register entirely; they could still be entered in a separate part of the register to which we would expect local authorities to give reduced priority. That would ensure that local authorities, in so far as they must now respond to local demand for self and custom build in a fuller way, will respond to the effective, as opposed to notional, demand in their area for these types of homes.
Brandon Lewis
I am pretty much in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, the only demand on the register should be effective demand. It is important that local authorities are confident that everyone on the register for self-build and custom house building is in a position to finance their project. The amendments, however, are unnecessary because we will achieve our mutual aim of ensuring effective demand through locally set eligibility criteria for the registers. We can build on some of the work done with the 11 vanguards and how locally led is the way to go. We asked all local authorities to submit expressions of interest, so I want to put on record our thanks to the 11 who have worked with us on that over the past few months.
Mr Thomas
I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to say so at this point, but, perhaps later in our proceedings, will he say what lessons can be learnt from the 11 vanguard authorities to deal with the scale of the housing crisis in London? There is potentially quite a bit of interest in self-build and custom house building in London, but the cost of land and other factors driving the housing crisis may make it even harder for those who want to do that. It would be helpful to hear a little more on whether the lessons from the vanguard authorities are helpful in any way for the specific London element of the picture.
Brandon Lewis
Obviously, it would have been good if a London authority had wanted to play a part by being one of the vanguards, as that would have given a direct outcome. However, some of the vanguards cover areas of high value, and the experiences in areas such as Stoke, which may have lower land value but is still a city with the challenges of land in and around it, and even those such as Cherwell—and, although not part of the vanguard, some of the work being done around Bicester to make custom build more viable in specific areas—show recognition that we have put in place a £150 million loan fund to which developers can apply to service plots for self and custom building to help make that more achievable and affordable for people. Hopefully, London local authorities will want to come forward as they start to appreciate that.
Clause 11 provides for regulations that enable relevant authorities to determine their own eligibility criteria and it is intended that one part of the locally determined criteria will be a financial solvency test. I suggest that enabling local authorities to apply such a test before acceptance on the register is a more effective means of achieving effective demand than the amendment, not least because that will enable each authority to specify in detail what reassurance it thinks it needs about the financial position of people seeking to join its register in its area.
The tests will be tailored to the specific requirements of that local area and may take into account the fact that not all self and custom house builders will require mortgage finance. For this reason, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Thomas
I was briefly provoked by the Minister’s response to my intervention. I say to him gently that it is incumbent on the Minister setting up an initiative—given the scale of the housing crisis in London—to have worked a little harder to try and get a vanguard authority in London. Why, for example, did Bromley, Bexley, Westminster or Richmond not seek to become a vanguard authority? The Minister, with his links into Conservative associations in those areas, surely could have persuaded the leaders to apply to become vanguard authorities, with all the helpful lessons for the housing crisis in London that their self-build experience might have demonstrated.
Matthew Pennycook
Just when I thought consensus had broken down, harmony seems to have reappeared. I am reassured by the Minister’s comments. I think he makes a good case for how financial solvency tests in a local authority area may be more effective than mortgages. We look forward to seeing those in due course and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 9, page 6, line 35, at end insert
“except where extant permission can be revived”.
This amendment would ensure that extant planning permissions which are revived after the start of the first base period are taken into account for the purposes of this section.
Given the time, I will be extremely brief and I hope that we can wrap up these clauses this morning. I believe the amendment is self-explanatory and I hope it is relatively uncontroversial. It is a small technical amendment that would clarify what permissions are taken into account for the purposes of clause 9, by including extant permissions that might be revived after the start of the first base period. It is, of course, entirely logical that planning permissions granted before the register has been established in any given area should not be counted as a suitable development permission under the amended Act. We wish to probe the Minister on why planning permissions that replace extant planning permissions, where the applicant is seeking to extend the time period for implementation, should not be brought within the scope of what should be counted as suitable development permission, given the contribution that such authorisations—albeit small in number and declining—could make to increasing the supply of self-build and custom build homes.
Brandon Lewis
First, I would like to reassure the Committee that under the current drafting of the legislation, land which has been granted planning permission prior to the start of the first base period but where that planning permission has now lapsed, can count towards compliance with the duty. That is part of what we are learning from the programme of vanguards. Picking up on the earlier point raised by the hon. Member for Harrow West, I would say that this was widely published at the time but it is disappointing that nobody in London came forward—neither his own authority nor the others he noted. I hope they will also learn from what has been going on. For example, the National Custom and Self Build Association is publishing a comprehensive toolkit on their website on 9 December, and hopefully all authorities, including those in London, can benefit from that.
The reason that these permissions can count towards compliance with the duty is that a person would need to submit a new application in order to extend the time limit on an extant permission in order to implement the existing permission. So an application for an extant planning permission would, if granted, be considered as a new permission, and therefore count against the number of permissions required. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for the clarification that extant applications will be counted as new permissions. A theme that has emerged from this morning that I would like the Minister to take away is that it would be useful to know much more of the detail about the experience of the vanguard authorities. He mentioned earlier that there have been 80 people on the register within the first few months, but that does not tell us the differences between those 11 vanguards, or what the experiences might be in different parts of the country with different factors at work. It would be useful for the Committee to have numbers and to have a better sense of what those vanguard authorities are doing and what the experience has been. On the basis of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Thomas
Sir Alan, I have sought a stand part debate to raise the issue of the price of land. It may seem odd, having been broadly in support of clauses 8 and 9, to suggest that we need a debate on the merits of clause 9, but I worry that, on the basis of evidence that the Opposition presented to the Lyons review, the cost of land may be a significant deterrent for many would-be self and custom house builders, and that granting permission in principle may inadvertently drive up the cost of land. That is the issue I want to persuade the Minister to mull over. In its evidence to the Lyons review, the National Custom and Self Build Association said that the cost of acquiring land was the most significant barrier to more self and custom house building, and that 50% of would-be self and custom house builders had a budget of £200,000 or less with which to fund both the construction of their home and site acquisition.
Part of my reason for being interested in whether there had been a vanguard authority in London was the huge cost of land there relative to many other parts of the UK. There may be less scope for self-builders to believe that they could build in London than in the Stokes or the Bicesters, to which the Minister referred. Thinking about the cost of land in Harrow, I struggle to believe that many self-builders could build property for under £200,000 if they have also had to acquire the land.
We know that when planning permission is given for a site, it usually drives up its value and my concern is that if permission in principle is given, even on a plot that has been designated for self-building in future, it would drive up the cost of that land and limit the number of would-be self-builders or custom house builders who might want to build on it. Surely none of us wants to see the number of would-be self-builders restricted, or for them to have to look at areas of the country other than Harrow.
This morning, we have had a pretty good debate about the benefits of self and custom building and there seems to be broad consensus on both sides of the House, and particularly in the Committee, for expansion of such building. The danger is that we have been talking about the emperor’s new clothes, and that lack of finance and professional support—I am thinking of housing co-operatives—might detract from people’s ability to crack on with building their own home or getting involved with a custom house builder. My worry is that the National Custom and Self Build Association is right in saying that the cost of land will continue to be the most significant deterrent to going forward. Are we in danger of creating an additional hurdle to the cost of acquiring land by supporting the granting of permission in principle and therefore, albeit inadvertently, driving up still further the cost of acquiring land?
I worry that we missed an opportunity in clause 8 to make clause 9 even better in terms of housing co-operatives. Our earlier debate made it clear that some would-be housing co-operatives could benefit from clauses 8 and 9. Again, I encourage the Minister to think a little further about the benefits of housing co-operatives, and about what more the Department can do to encourage local authorities to look with enthusiasm at the potential of housing co-operatives to address some of the housing need in their area.
With that in mind, I return to a point that the hon. Member for South Norfolk made almost as an aside. He said that, given the exemption from right to buy, housing co-operatives could flourish as a result of the Bill. Many co-operatives are worried about other parts of the Bill, including the reduction in rental income and what that will mean for their finance and ability to expand further, and the additional administrative costs that might be generated by pay to stay. Will the Minister comment on the impact of those aspects of the Bill on housing co-operatives? That would be helpful. I hope he will focus on whether he thinks that the granting of permission in principle for self-build housing plots will inadvertently drive up the cost of land and therefore make it even more difficult for would-be self-builders and custom house builders.
Mr Bacon
I have one concern about clause 9; I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me. Clause 9(1) will insert new section 2A into the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. Proposed new section 2A(6)(c) says that,
“development permission is ‘suitable’ if it is permission in respect of development that could”—
could—
“include self-build and custom housebuilding.”
I recognise that having a specific percentage in the measure would be unhelpful and impractical, because local circumstances vary so much, but it could have been drafted to say that development permission was suitable if it was permission in respect of development that included self-build and custom house building. That would be practical. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that. Perhaps he will take the matter away and consider whether we might tweak the clause at a later stage.
Brandon Lewis
I will touch on the comments of the hon. Member for Harrow West before coming to the core of the point on clause 9. We will discuss some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised later in our proceedings; he tempted me to touch on points that are not covered by the Bill at all, but I will not test your patience by doing so, Sir Alan. I reiterate my earlier general comments about co-operatives. They have an important part to play as part of the housing mix, but that is separate from the issue of custom house building. If co-operatives are doing self and custom house building the measures will apply to them and, I hope, will be beneficial for them.
On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, the Bill aims to get more permissioned serviced land into the system and ready for development. Although local authorities cannot force landowners to market their plots exclusively to those on the register, guidance will encourage them to keep those on the register aware of any land suitable for self and custom house building that has been permissioned. We do not want to do anything that would hinder land becoming available for much-needed housing more generally; putting planning restrictions on land about the type of housing that may be built on that land could do that. Instead, the clause creates opportunities for those interested in self and custom house building.
I have sympathy for my hon. Friend’s point, however. I know that he is driving towards making sure that the land is put forward. I have met representatives from the National Custom and Self Build Association in the past few weeks to discuss some of the issues. I think we are getting the balance right, but I am sympathetic to his point and will look at it again.
The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which my hon. Friend championed through Parliament, requires relevant authorities to hold a register of individuals who want to acquire a plot of land to build their own home in an authority’s area, and to have regard to that register when carrying out their housing, planning, regeneration and land disposal functions. Clause 9 inserts new section 2A into the Act; that will require authorities to give development permissions suitable for self and custom house building to enough serviced plots of land to at least match the demand on their register. Regulations will detail how long relevant authorities have to permission sufficient land.
The number of people who join the register in each base period will dictate the number of permissions required. The first base period starts on the day on which local authorities are required to open their register and will end the day before this clause comes into force. Subsequent base periods will run for a period of 12 months beginning immediately from the end of the previous base period. Requiring relevant authorities to permission sufficient serviced plots of land to match demand in their area will make it easier for prospective self-build and custom house builders to find suitable land. It will promote an increase in housing supply generally and provide much-needed work for smaller house builders, who were hardest-hit by the recession and for whom the recovery has been slower. That will go some way, we hope, to deal with the issue of supply and demand raised by the hon. Member for Harrow West—
The Chair
Order. It being 11.25 am, the debate is adjourned until 2 pm. I make an appeal to all Members: when I took over this Committee last week, we were moving from clause 2. We are now just about to get to clause 10. We have 145 clauses and five half sessions to go. Our job is not debate but scrutiny. The sooner we get on with that, the better. Will Members please make future questions concise, to the point and not repetitive?
Housing and Planning Bill (Seventh sitting)
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
In line with this morning’s decision, Members may remove their jackets if they wish to do so. Minister, do you want to continue with your summary, or do you want others to be called?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
To help move things along, I am happy for the Question to be put.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I triggered this debate in order to ask the Minister to dwell on the concern that if permission is given in principle, even just for self-build designated slots, there is a risk of pushing up the price of that land—the acquisition of land is currently one of the biggest deterrents to broadening the self-build sector. The Minister gave an interesting justification for clause 9 standing part of the Bill, much of which I am sure is perfectly reasonable, but he did not answer the particular concern I raised. I would be grateful if he might dwell on that point and come back to me.
Brandon Lewis
I dealt with that issue in the long conversation we had this morning, and I made a point about the basics of supply and demand. I will go a little further to help the hon. Gentleman by saying that planning permission in principle is on land that is identified on a brownfield register or in a potential neighbourhood or local plan. The land is therefore already potentially designated for housing. The argument that planning in principle has any further effect on the value of the land is completely false.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Exemption from duty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 10 inserts a new section into the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 enabling relevant authorities to apply to the Secretary of State for an exemption from the duty to grant permission for sufficient land to match demand. There are some areas where the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding may far outstrip land supply. To ensure that we continue to protect the environment and build only in a sustainable way, we must be able to exempt relevant authorities that, with the best will in the world, are simply unable to grant permission for sufficient land to meet demand.
The detail will be set out in regulations, but the intention is that where demand on the register is a significant proportion of the land available for housing, as set out in the five-year land supply, the authority may apply to the Secretary of State for an exemption. Authorities that are exempt from the duty to grant permission for serviced land to match demand must still, of course, have regard to the demands on their registers when carrying out their housing, planning, regeneration and land disposal functions.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I will be brief. I fully understand the need to be able to have exemptions in some circumstances. The law will need to take account of very different circumstances in different local authorities with very different levels of land supply and demand. The City of London comes to mind as an obvious example, although there will be other intensely urban areas where this is also an issue. Can the Minister give an assurance that this will be a tight test and that not only will the requirement for authorities to have regard to their obligations still obtain, but it will be within the Secretary of State’s power under the proposed regulations to make the granting of an exemption to a local authority conditional upon it satisfying certain conditions that the Secretary of State might lay down, such as a partnership with another local authority that has more land?
This is a slightly different example, but it is relevant. The City of London sponsors an academy in the London Borough of Southwark. The City, being a very small borough, does not have enough students for a high school of that kind, but it sends some of its students to the high school on land supplied by Southwark. Does the Minister think there is room for that kind of partnership and that conditions could be imposed on local authorities before the Secretary of State agrees to make an exemption?
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I have a brief question for the Minister. Does he have any idea of how many local authorities are likely to be exempt and on what grounds? That would help us to make some sense of the clause.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk made a good point, and we will ensure that we take his comments forward when drawing up the regulations. When an authority finds itself exempt and the regulations detail an exemption process, we will require it to demonstrate how, if an exemption is granted, it will continue to support those on its register. That could be satisfied by it working in partnership with neighbouring or nearby authorities in the way my hon. Friend outlines.
Obviously, as it is an exemption policy, I would not want to prejudge who might or might not be looking for an exemption. I appreciate that there will be challenges in some areas, as the hon. Lady pointed out, and that places such as London might struggle to meet demand for self-build, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Harrow West, who is not in his place at the moment. That is why we have included a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the circumstances in which an authority may apply for an exemption when the time comes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Further and consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 11 makes further and consequential amendments to the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. In particular, it creates an additional power so that regulations may provide that the relevant authorities can set their own conditions of eligibility. These are expected to be restricted to a local connection test and, as we outlined and discussed, a financial solvency test.
The clause also provides for regulations to enable the register to have two parts. The second part would apply to anyone who had applied to be registered but failed to meet specified conditions of eligibility. We expect this to be used so that anyone who fails a local area connection test when an authority has chosen to apply one must be entered in the second part of the register.
Entries in the second part of the register would not count as demand when determining the number of service plots that a relevant authority must permit. However, authorities would have to have regard to those entries when undertaking their planning, housing, regeneration and land disposal functions, ensuring that, for example, when an authority has introduced a local connection test, people can still join part of the register, allowing someone who currently lives in the area where land for development is limited also to register in nearby areas where land might be more widely available—that touches on the point my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk made—even when those areas have their own local connection test.
The clause also enables the Secretary of State to provide in regulations that local authorities can recover fees connected with their duty to provide sufficient suitable development permissions. Regulations may also stipulate the circumstances in which no fee is payable. For example, when making these regulations, we may consider whether it is appropriate to charge those people on the second part of the register. It is expected that these fees will be set at a level that broadly reflects the costs incurred by the authority when undertaking its duties under the 2015 Act.
Mr Bacon
I crave your indulgence, Sir Alan, for just a moment longer. I agree with the Minister. Plainly, there must be some criteria for eligibility and a sensible approach to the recovery of fees. There must indeed be a local area test and it would be sensible if a local authority could exclude people from the operative part of the register if they did not meet the local area test.
However, I seek the Minister’s assurance on a specific point. The test will be applied relatively narrowly so as not to exclude people. I referred in the oral evidence session to the Community Self Build Agency website, and I will quote from it now because it is totally relevant. It states:
“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.”
I would not want this exclusion and the ability to be placed on the second part of the register to exclude people who, unaided and not as part of a scheme, might not be eligible or might not meet the financial conditions but who, if they were part of a sponsored scheme, might indeed meet the conditions of eligibility.
It has been proved that the most dispossessed and downtrodden, who are told that they cannot have any hand in their own future and cannot help themselves, can do so with a bit of help, and they should not be excluded from the operative part of the register. What assurance can the Minister offer that the eligibility criteria will not be used in a way that reduces opportunity to take part in schemes where jointly the eligibility criteria could be met?
Brandon Lewis
Areas that are more generally exempt must still have regard in the register that has been carried out to general housing, planning and local disposal issues.
My hon. Friend makes a more focused point, with which I have sympathy. As we go forward and develop the regulations, local authorities will be encouraged to notify people on both parts of the register of opportunities to purchase sites suitable for self-build and custom build. That will be set out in guidance. There will be opportunities through regulation and guidance to ensure that we cover all those opportunities.
We want to ensure that custom and self-build land is available for everybody who is eligible and potentially could develop their home in that way. I will take my hon. Friend’s points on board as we go through the regulations and guidance. I hope that reassures him that we will do everything we can to ensure that everybody has the chance to take forward the revolution that he has inspired in self-build and custom house building.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Introduction to this Part
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 12, page 8, line 17, leave out “letting” and insert “property”.
Part 2 of the Bill contains various references to rogue landlords and letting agents. NC8 has the effect of extending the Part to property managers, whether or not they are landlords or letting agents. As a result the references to rogue landlords and letting agents need to be changed to refer to rogue landlords and “property agents”, a term that is defined by amendment 48 to mean letting agents and property managers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 3, 4, 9, 12, 19, 22 and 45 to 49
Government new clause 8—Meaning of “property manager” and related expressions.
Mr Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, and to take the baton from my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning.
The Government value the private rented sector; it is an important part of the housing market, housing 4.4 million households in England. We want to support good landlords and agents who provide decent, well-maintained homes and avoid unnecessary further regulation on them.
Good landlords respect their tenants’ rights and comply with all the appropriate obligations and legal requirements. Good landlords will benefit from what we are doing. Standards and compliance with the law across the sector will be set on a level playing field, and good landlords will no longer face unfair competition from the rogues who ignore the law and their obligations.
A small number of landlords and agents do not properly manage their lettings or properties. They exploit their tenants and the public purse through housing benefit. They rent out substandard, overcrowded and dangerous accommodation. Those landlords and agents do not respond to legitimate complaints made by tenants. They ignore their obligations and some are prepared to accept prosecution and a fine rather than maintain properties in acceptable conditions.
As clause 12 explains, the objectives of part 2 of the Bill are threefold. It introduces new financial sanctions against rogues who break the law, by extending the rent repayment order provisions introduced by the Housing Act 2004. It also enables local authorities to identify rogues operating in the private sector in their area and place them on a database, which other local authorities in England will have access to. Finally, it provides a regime for removing the worst offenders from the sector through banning orders.
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning are intended to make it clear that the provisions in part 2 relating to the database and banning orders apply to persons engaged in the business of property management, irrespective of whether they are also letting agents. New clause 8 explains what property management work is. Amendments 45 to 47 and 49 disengage property management from letting agency work, so that both are defined as separate and distinct activities.
Amendment 48 provides a new overarching definition of property agent, which covers both letting agents and property managers, as a person could act in the capacity of either or both. Amendments 2, 3, 4, 9, 19 and 22 are consequential on amendment 48, each replacing references in part 2 to “letting agents” with “property agents”.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 13, 15, 16, 50 to 55, 34 to 39 and 42 to 44.
Government new clause 3—Offence of Breach of Banning Order.
Government new clause 4—Offences by Bodies Corporate.
Mr Jones
Continuing to rent out property in breach of a tribunal order prohibiting a person from doing so is a serious matter, which is why measures are in place in the Bill for such a breach to attract a financial civil penalty. It is also why provisions are included to enable tenants, or local authorities where housing benefit has been paid, to apply for a rent repayment order against the landlord for up to a year. We consider breaching a banning order to be serious not only because an order of the tribunal is being flouted, but because the landlord is profiting from it. Given that banning orders are made against only the worst landlords, their continuing to rent out property could put tenants’ health and safety at risk.
The Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, has therefore tabled new clause 3, which provides that the breach of a banning order is a criminal offence and enables the prosecution of a landlord in the magistrates court. A local authority may instead impose a civil financial penalty, provided for in clause 17 as amended by amendments 15 and 16. Tenants and local authorities will still be able to apply for rent repayment orders when a landlord has committed the offence of breaching a banning order. However, new clause 3 provides that the court can impose a fine, which is not subject to a limit, on a person who is convicted of such a breach. Alternatively, or in addition, the court can sentence the person to a term of up to six months. The fact that a person can be sent to prison for letting out properties in breach of a banning order should deter anyone from doing so, and it marks a commitment shared across the House to tackle rogue landlords.
New clause 4 is intended to prevent persons escaping personal liability if the company they operate breaches a banning order. The clause provides that if the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of a company, or because of that person’s negligence, the officer can be prosecuted and punished as well as the company. An officer of a company is defined as a director or a company secretary, or someone acting in a similar capacity.
Amendments 34 to 39 and 42 to 44 make changes to the rent repayment order scheme set out in chapter 4 of part 2 because breaching a banning order is to be a criminal offence. That will mean that clauses 35 and 36, which set out special rules for repayment orders following a breach of a banning order, are no longer required. Amendments 5, 13 and 50 to 55 are all consequential on making breaching a banning order a criminal offence.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
Clause 12 summarises the provisions in part 2 of the Bill. It explains that this part is about tackling rogue landlords and letting agents. The Government value the private rented sector. As I have said, it is an important part of our housing market, housing 4.4 million households in England. We want to support good landlords who provide decent, well maintained homes for people, and avoid unnecessary further regulation on them. Most private landlords provide a decent service to their tenants, but we know that there are a small number of landlords and letting agents who do not manage their lettings or properties properly, sometimes exploiting their tenants—and the public purse, through housing benefit—by renting out substandard, overcrowded and dangerous accommodation.
These landlords and letting agents often do not respond to legitimate complaints made by tenants. These are the rogues that this part applies to. We want to ensure that such rogues can be placed on a national database, so that local housing authorities in whose area they operate can identify them and their behaviours and standards can be properly monitored. We also want to ensure that the worst rogue offenders can be removed from the rental market altogether, through banning orders. Rogues who let out unsafe or unhealthy properties or engage in illegal practices such as violent entry, harassment or unlawful eviction of tenants will no longer be able to financially benefit from such activities. Part 2 extends the rent repayment order regime so that, in appropriate cases, tenants—and former tenants—can reclaim rent, and local authorities can reclaim housing benefit payments, from landlords who have engaged in those types of unacceptable activities.
The majority, good landlords, will not be affected by this part. However, they will benefit from it, since standards and compliance with the law across the sector will be set on a level playing field and good landlords who work hard for their tenants and comply with the law will cease to face unfair competition from the rogue landlords, who ignore the law and their obligations.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
We welcome this initiative on rogue landlords. I would like to ask the Minister a question. The impact assessment talks a lot about the very small number of rogue landlords. Although they are in the minority, do we have any information about how big that small number may be? It is easy to send out surveys to landlords and get them to send them back, but it is the good landlords who complete those surveys, and the rogue or criminal landlords do not engage at all. Further, given that the private rented sector is increasing, especially in cities, do we have any information about whether the increasing amount of private rented accommodation is increasing the number of rogue landlords? As the sector increases, does it get better, or do we have no evidence on that?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. First, she mentions the number of rogue landlords and the impact assessment. We have looked at that very carefully and consider that about 10,500 rogue landlords may be operating. This Government is firmly on the side of good landlords and tenants and we want to drive those rogue landlords out of the system. That is what the proposed clauses in this part do.
On banning orders, which I shall come to in clause 13, we expect that about 600 will be applied for to the tribunal as a result of the measures that this Bill brings.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
“Banning order” and “banning order offence”
Question proposed, That clause 13 stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
Clause 13 explains that a banning order made by the first-tier tribunal property chamber can ban a person from being a landlord or being involved in residential letting agency or property management for two or more of those things. In relation to properties in England the reference to “person” in this part of the Bill includes a company as well as an individual. As explained in clause 15, a person can only be subject to a banning order if they have been convicted of a banning order offence. Subsection (2) provides that the Secretary of State may define banning order offences by regulation. We have not included specific offences in the Bill because we want the flexibility to add further, or remove existing offences as the new law beds in and beyond, to ensure that the offences are relevant and up to date. However, subsection (3) explains what matters may be taken into consideration when setting out in regulations what are banning order offences.
The banning order offences will all be existing offences which already have serious consequences for those who are convicted. It is envisaged that a banning order offence will include repeated offences involving breaches of health and safety requirements under the Housing Act 2004, such as a failure to comply with an improvement or overcrowding notice. It is also envisaged that a banning order offence will include unlawful eviction of tenants or violence or harassment towards them by the landlord or letting agent. A banning order may also be sought where a person has been convicted in the Crown court of a serious offence involving fraud, drugs or sexual assault that is committed in or in relation to a property that is owned or managed by the offender or which involves or was perpetrated against persons occupying such a property.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Application and notice of intended proceedings
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 14, page 9, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) If a local housing authority in England applies for a banning order against a body corporate that has been convicted of a banning order offence, it must also apply for a banning order against any officer who has been convicted of the same offence in respect of the same conduct.”
This amendment ensures that where a local authority applies for a banning order against a company that has been convicted of an offence, it must also apply for a banning order against any officer who has been convicted of the same offence (for example, under section 251 of the Housing Act 2004).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 7, 8, 10, 11, 17 and 18
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will come to that during my comments on these amendments.
Amendment 8 provides that the local housing authority must tell a person how long it will ask the tribunal to make a banning order for. The minimum period is six months but there is no maximum term. This will enable the person to make representations about the length of the order. The authority must take account of such representations before making an application to the tribunal.
Amendment 6 provides that where a local housing authority intends to apply for a banning order against a company, it must also apply for an order against any officer of that company who has been convicted of the same banning order offence as the company. This would prevent such individuals continuing to trade in a personal capacity in activities from which the company is barred. Because the local housing authority is required to apply for an order in those circumstances, amendment 7 provides that no notice of intended proceedings need be given to the officer. However, such notice must be given to the company. Nor does this mean that an order is automatically made against the convicted officer. It is for the tribunal to decide, in all circumstances, whether a banning order ought to be made against the individual.
Amendments 10 and 11 are related to amendment 6. They provide that a banning order can be made against the officer of the company, notwithstanding that the officer was not a residential landlord or property agent when they committed the offence. Amendment 18 closes a potential loophole in clause 21 so as to prevent a company subject to a banning order transferring property to another company where both companies have officers in common. Such a transfer would need approval from the first-tier tribunal. The measure prevents the officers of a banned landlord company from setting up another company to take over ownership of the banned company’s portfolio and continue trading under another name.
Mr Thomas
I do not understand. Why should not the tenant be able to do so as well? I get the logic of saying that the housing authority should have the prime responsibility for doing so, but why should not a tenant who is feeling particularly victimised be able to make their own approach directly? We on Opposition side of the Committee are often accused of being in favour of the big state or the nanny state. I ask the Minister gently whether he is not in danger of being accused of the same thing by not being willing to empower tenants to take their own route to seeking justice.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman must understand that this Government have done an awful lot to pass power into the hands of the individual, but ultimately, in this case, there is an issue of public law protection and of ensuring that rogue landlords are held to account. We feel that the best body to do so is the local authority, which will be able to take on rogue landlords to the benefit of the tenants wronged as a result.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendments made: 7, in clause 14, page 9, line 13, after “order” insert “under subsection (1)”
This amendment removes the need for a notice of intended proceedings in cases where a local housing authority is obliged to apply for a banning order because of amendment 6. It would not make sense to invite a person to make representations in a case where the authority is obliged to make an application.
8, in clause 14, page 9, line 16, after “why,” insert—
“( ) stating the length of each proposed ban,”—(Mr. Marcus Jones.)
This amendment requires the length of each proposed ban to be stated in the notice of intended proceedings that a local housing authority has to give a person before applying for a banning order.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 14, page 9, line 20, at end insert
“and must make all reasonable effort to consult with any affected tenant of the person the authority is intending to proceed against.”
This amendment would require local housing authorities to consult directly with any tenants of a landlord or a letting agent when making a banning order.
We want local housing authorities to make reasonable efforts to consult tenants directly, because we understand that there may be times when for some reason they cannot contact affected tenants. We are largely supportive of the measures to tackle rogue landlords in order to ensure safety and security for tenants in the sector and to penalise criminal landlords. In its written evidence, the charity Crisis said of banning orders:
“We believe that these could help drive up standards and protect vulnerable tenants.”
For banning orders to work, they must penalise and target the criminal landlords, who bring down the name of the private rented sector and the reputation of all landlords. The Residential Landlords Association said in its written evidence that
“landlords who wilfully breach their legal obligations should face the consequences.”
We must not lose sight of the reasons for applying a banning order—to protect existing and prospective tenants from the criminality of rogue landlords. Some tenants may have been on the receiving end of the original offence and will have plenty of information on someone’s fitness to remain a landlord. Some tenants will bring the local housing authority’s attention to a landlord and will have input through their representations. Tenants should have a voice. Without one, they are just bystanders to the process. As the proposals stand, local authorities do not have to seek the views of tenants.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
What estimate has the hon. Lady made of the indicative costs of the proposal? As she knows, when local authorities proceed properly with selective licensing consultations under the Housing Act 2004, the cost can be prohibitive. In areas such as mine, which has a lot of people who do not speak English as their first language and a lot of transitory people domiciled in the private sector—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Harrow West let me finish? In that situation, the costs were quite substantial. Has the hon. Lady given that some thought?
Teresa Pearce
I have given thought to that, which is why I talked about “reasonable effort”. The original amendment said that the local authority “must” consult. It now asks for a “reasonable effort”, which is open to interpretation. Of course, there are costs in doing things properly, but we are trying to rid the private rented sector of rogue landlords who commit criminal offences by keeping people in properties that are unfit and unsafe. There is a cost, but the cost of not doing something could be far higher for the local authority.
Are banning orders only a way to punish criminal landlords or are they a way to improve standards in the sector by working with landlords and tenants to drive out rogue landlords? It will be fundamental to the success of banning orders for tenants to be brought in on the process. Not all tenants will want to play a part in the process and that is fine. The aim behind the amendment is for local housing authorities to consult affected tenants, ensuring they have the opportunity to have their say. If tenants have been subject to wrongdoing by a landlord, they will be able to provide further and wider evidence to the local housing authority. The landlord may have been prosecuted for one offence but could have demonstrated a consistent disregard for the tenant’s security and safety. That could be factored in by the local housing authority in the first-tier tribunal. It works both ways. The local housing authority and the first-tier tribunal could factor in positive experiences from tenants, although I suspect that those cases will be few and far between. In all cases, it will allow for the local housing authority and the first-tier tribunal to build up a more coherent case for or against a banning order.
I hope the Minister looks favourably on the suggestion because it would make this section of the Bill work better. For those reasons, we are moving that the clause be amended to include a requirement for the local housing authority to consult directly with any tenants of the rogue landlord or letting agent against whom it is hoping to make a banning order.
Mr Thomas
I rise to support the amendment and to add one or two brief thoughts. What would my hon. Friend, who spoke to the amendment in a very consensual style, think about a local authority that has not rushed into taking action against landlords because, for ideological reasons, it does not think it should or because the burden of other legislation in this time of significant cutbacks is too much for it to prioritise taking action against rogue landlords? The amendment would create that additional bit of pressure to ensure that local housing authorities always think of the need to consult tenants on an annual basis about whether rogue landlords are in action and whether the authority should act on that.
Let us take South Norfolk Council as an example. Presumably whenever the hon. Member for South Norfolk sees housing authority staff, he sits down and talks with them at some length about self-build and custom house building. Presumably, given his importance and the esteem in which he is held, it requires a considerable effort by those staff to deal with his inquiries. What my hon. Friend’s amendment will do is gently rebalance perhaps the enthusiasm within South Norfolk housing authority to focus on the needs of tenants, as well as dealing with his concerns. As I alluded to, there might be an authority—a Bexley or Bromley, perhaps, in London—that is so pro-landlord that it cannot envisage rogue landlords operating in its space.
Given that the Minister is determined—it seems to me, at least—to adopt the nanny state approach and not allow tenants themselves to go to the first-tier tribunal, my hon. Friend’s amendment would at least force local authorities to consider whether there is a need to take action. In that sense, it would be a useful annual prod to get local authorities to do a bit more in this area.
Mr Jackson
The Committee will know that in his previous glittering political career the hon. Member for Harrow West did not get a chance to speak to the House that often, because he was the Opposition spokesman on international development, and he is certainly making up for it today.
We are trying to get a consensus. What we should realise is that good local housing authorities have a good network, and checks and balances, to know who the rogue landlords are. In the normal course of events, they have good relationships and good communication with tenant groups, community groups, local councillors and others, so I am reluctant to support a measure that is not permissive but overly prescriptive. I speak as someone who has a local authority currently going through selective licensing, which is absolutely exhaustive and first class—it is happening under the auspices of Peterborough City Council—and I also represent a seat that has a significant number of rather challenging tenants using the private sector lettings field. Therefore, I see at first hand that good housing enforcement officers are already getting out there, talking to tenants, identifying the rogue landlords and going after them. Making an overly prescriptive amendment to this clause is essentially superfluous and will not add to its effectiveness.
Mr Thomas
I have never associated the hon. Gentleman with the nanny state tendency in his party, so I wonder whether I might divert him from what is an interesting point to suggest that, as well as there being good housing enforcement agents in his own authority, there must surely be tenants who on occasion might have the capacity or the desire to go to the tribunal themselves and seek action against bad landlords. Why does he not support those tenants having the right to do so?
Mr Jackson
Not everyone would agree that I am part of the nanny state, but I am a social conservative rather than a social liberal.
Mr Jackson
It means that there are opportunities, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Housing Act 2004 and now this legislation, for people to go through the proper procedures, which will stand up in a court of law or a tribunal, to identify, deal with and ameliorate the issues caused by rogue landlords. To conclude, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not think the amendment will add anything to the efficacy of the Bill. I support the Government’s clause as it stands.
Mr Jones
The Government agree wholeheartedly that the impact on the tenant is a key consideration when it comes to a banning order. Clause 15(3)(d) provides that, in deciding whether to make a banning order, the tribunal must consider
“the likely effect of the banning order on the person and anyone else who may be affected by the order.”
Clearly, that would include the tenant.
Clause 20 introduces schedule 3, which provides that a management order may be made in cases where a banning order has been made. That will allow the local authority to take over management of a property and could allow a tenant to continue living in a property while a banning order is in place. The local authority may, for example, wish to use that power in situations where there is a vulnerable tenant whom it does not wish to see displaced. That further protects the tenant in the event of a banning order being made and ensures that they do not suffer for further offences committed by their landlord. It is also worth noting that the tribunal can include exceptions when making a banning order, such as to allow time for a tenant to find alternative accommodation.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
Clause 14 explains that before a local housing authority applies to the first-tier tribunal for a banning order, it must give the person against whom it proposes to make the application a notice of intended proceedings. That notice must explain that the authority proposes to make the application and why. It must invite the person to make representations about the proposal and not less than 28 days must be given for doing so. The authority must consider any representations received in deciding whether to proceed with the application. The authority cannot make the application until the notice period has expired and it has considered the representations it has received, if any.
Subsection (5) places a time limit on making an application by providing that the notice of intended proceedings cannot be given any later than six months after the person’s conviction for the banning order offence to which the notice relates.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Making a banning order
Amendments made: 9, in clause 15, page 9, line 29, leave out “letting” and insert “property”
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 2.
Amendment 10, in clause 15, page 9, line 30, at end insert “(but see subsection (2A))”
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 11.
Amendment 11, in clause 15, page 9, line 32, at end insert—
‘(2A) Where an application is made under section 14(1A) against an officer of a body corporate, the First-tier Tribunal may make a banning order against the officer even if the condition in subsection (1)(b) is not met.”
This ensures that where a body corporate commits a banning order offence and an officer commits the same offence, an order can be made against the officer even though he or she was not a residential landlord etc at the time the offence was committed (i.e. because it was the company that was the landlord etc). The amendment is related to amendment 6.
Amendment 12, in clause 15, page 9, line 39, leave out “letting” and insert “property”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 2.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
Clause 15 sets out the matters that the first-tier tribunal must have regard to in deciding whether to make to make a banning order against a person. Subsection (1) provides that the tribunal may make the order if the person has been convicted of a banning order offence and if the person was a residential landlord or letting agent at the time the offence was committed.
Subsection (2) provides that the tribunal can make the order only if the local authority has served a notice of intended proceedings on that person and considered their representations before making the application under clause 14. If the tribunal is satisfied that the preliminary requirements are met, it must then decide whether to make a banning order and, if so, what order to make. Subsection (3) sets out the matters that the tribunal must consider when reaching those decisions. It must consider the seriousness of the banning order offence of which the person has been convicted, and whether that person has any other convictions for banning order offences. The tribunal must also consider whether the person is, or has been in the past, entered on to the database of rogue landlords and letting agents. Finally, the tribunal must take account of the likely effect that such an order would have on the person who would be subject to it and anybody else who might be affected, such as the tenant.
In addition, where making the order, the tribunal may make exceptions, as I shall explain when we come to the next clause. Under clauses 16 and 20, a local housing authority can make a management order when a banning order is enforced. These measures will ensure that tenancies do not necessarily need to be brought to an end on the making of a banning order. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate for these tenancies to remain in force and to be managed effectively by the local authority.
A banning order is an extremely strong tool and its impact is far-reaching. It can prevent a landlord or letting agent from continuing to trade, and its effect would remove much-needed rental stock from the market. On the other hand, it is a necessary tool to combat those rogues who have committed serious offences and who, despite being given a chance to improve, continue to operate and to profit by providing poor quality accommodation and following bad management practices, and who put the health, safety and welfare of their tenants at risk. The Government estimate that around 600 applications for banning orders a year will be made to the first-tier tribunal. It will be for that tribunal to take into account the matters to which I have referred in subsection (3), and to decide from the circumstances of the case whether making the order is appropriate and, if so, what form the banning order should take.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful for the opportunity to come in here. After the touching and moving tribute that the hon. Member for Peterborough paid me, I feel duty-bound to intervene on this clause too. I draw the Minister’s specific focus and attention to subsection (2), which is the requirement that the banning order be made on application by a local housing authority only. I do not want to dwell on whether or not a tenant should have been allowed to do that, but perhaps I might ask the Minister to reflect on whether certain organisations other than the planning authority might have been allowed—or might still be allowed—to bring forward an argument to the tribunal for a banning order against a person. In this case a housing advice charity or a major charity such as Shelter would perhaps get access to information about very poor landlords who the local housing authority might not know about.
I am minded in moving this point to draw the Minister’s attention to a parallel situation in consumer law. Individual consumers cannot go to court when there is an allegation of price fixing of consumer products, but organisations such as Which? can do so on their behalf. I wonder whether there is a parallel here that the Minister might want to contemplate. Perhaps in a certain, narrow number of cases a designated organisation—clearly one of good repute, with expertise and experience of going to the first-tier tribunal, so that it is not clogged up with poorly thought-through cases—might be able to bring forward an argument on behalf of a group of tenants to make the case for a banning order. Perhaps individual housing authorities might not want to bring a case where a rogue landlord is operating across a series of housing authorities, whereas an organisation with a London-wide remit or a national remit might be more willing to spend the resource to gather evidence to go to the first-tier tribunal.
I absolutely see the argument that the housing authority should have the prime responsibility, but perhaps the Minister could reflect on whether a small number of additional organisations could be designated by the Secretary of State to take forward cases where there is not an obvious fit to an individual authority area and where they clearly have particular expertise.
Mr Jones
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The organisations that he refers to are powerful organisations in the sector and are generally listened to by the Government, local authorities and other organisations. These organisations are powerful in their own right and can make representations to local housing authorities in relation to cases that they may come across or wider issues. The organisation that he refers to can also make representations to the first-tier tribunal when it makes its deliberations. There is therefore the opportunity for those organisations to support both their members and the people whose lives they are designed and set up to make better.
Mr Thomas
What the Minister says is absolutely true. I would encourage him to dwell on this and perhaps return to the point on Report. Why will he not allow a Shelter, or the Harrow Law Centre, for example, to bring forward their own argument on occasion? They work with housing authorities on cases that the local authorities bring forward; why can they not initiate action themselves? I am bringing the Minister specifically to the cross-borough point. Why is he not willing to consider Shelter, for example?
Mr Jones
Again, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He is bringing me back to the point that we discussed earlier when I set out quite clearly why the Government think that local authorities are the best placed to deal with this issue.
In London there may be numerous issues across different boroughs. We have a situation where those local authorities will be able to access the database of rogue landlords and therefore be able to get the information that goes across borough. It is incumbent on those local authorities not just to work in the best interests of people renting in the private sector in their borough, but to work with adjoining boroughs and pick up on the issues that also affect tenants in the borough in question, because landlords do not just operate on administrative boundaries; they operate on a wider basis. While I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, I think that the Bill is in a good place in this regard.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Duration and effect of banning order
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move amendment 112, in clause 16, page 10, line 3, leave out “6” and insert “12”
This amendment would ensure that a banning order lasts at least 12 months.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 105, in clause 16, page 10, line 3, at end insert—
“(2A) A landlord or letting agent subject to a banning order must undertake accredited training, as approved by the local housing authority, before they are able to let a property again.”
This amendment would equip banned landlords and letting agents with the knowledge and skill to properly manage a property.
Teresa Pearce
We want to amend clause 16 in two ways. First, we want to ensure that a banning order lasts at least 12 months rather than six. Secondly, the amendment seeks to equip banned landlords with the knowledge and skill to go back into the property market once the banning order has expired.
A similar vein runs through both amendments. They are both intended to strengthen banning orders, which is a measure that we support. In their written and oral evidence, many organisations, such as the Residential Landlords Association and Crisis, discussed the need to strengthen banning orders and provide further consequences for landlords who wilfully breach their legal obligations. That is why, with amendment 112, we are seeking to amend clause 16 to ensure that a banning order lasts at least 12 months, rather than six.
Mr Jones
Amendment 105 would require landlords and letting agents who are subject to a banning order to undertake local authority-approved training before a ban is lifted. This morning, Labour Members talked at length about clauses in the Bill placing new burdens on local authorities, but we will put aside the logistical issues for the moment.
The amendment focuses on the training of landlords and property agents. I am sure that the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead knows that a banning order is a serious step. A local authority will not seek a banning order, and the tribunal certainly will not grant one, if the landlord or property agent was simply ill-informed about their responsibilities. An order will be granted only after considering, as set out in clause 15(3),
“the seriousness of the offence of which the person has been convicted”
and any previous convictions for a banning order offence. The problem is not that the landlord is not aware of their responsibilities, but that they have already failed to meet them. I do not believe that accredited training will help with that.
The hon. Lady asked about training. A number of organisations, including the National Landlords Association and the Association of Residential Letting Agents, provide significant training for their members. I looked on the Association of Residential Letting Agents’ website earlier and it had clear advice and guidance on how to be a good and responsible landlord.
On amendment 112, clause 16 sets out a minimum term of six months for a banning order. Banning someone from acting as a landlord or property agent is a serious step. It is right that the tribunal have considerable discretion when making a banning order including over the length of the order, so as to take into account all of the relevant circumstances. The amendment would extend that minimum period to 12 months, removing the discretion of the tribunal to make a banning order for a shorter period. This chapter on banning orders seeks to impose stronger penalties on the worst offenders. I have heard the hon. Lady’s strength of feeling and I think that is shared by many members of the Committee.
Teresa Pearce
The legislation states a minimum of six months. Is a maximum period envisaged? Would the Minister consider that in certain circumstances it would be right for the court to give a much longer banning period than six months?
Mr Jones
I hear what the hon. Lady says and I hope that she takes my comments on the minimum period in the spirit of consensus intended. I reassure her that we will look at this very carefully on Report. On her point about the maximum time for the banning order, there is no maximum; actually, the ban could be for life. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady and that she is reassured about the minimum period of a banning order. On that basis and in the spirit of the good-natured debate we have had, I hope she will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Teresa Pearce
I am pleased to hear that the banning order is a minimum period and that it could be for life. We will have to examine it as it progresses to the courts to see how effective this is. Clearly we all want the same thing, which is to improve standards and rid the sector of the people who are exploiting tenants and often exploiting housing benefit as well.
To return to amendment 105 about accredited training, the Residential Landlords Association offers accredited training to its members, but the people we are considering here would not be part of that training. They would not be interested in that training; they are just interested in taking the money. So I understand what the Minister says but we are looking at clause 16, about duration and effect of banning order—what we want for the effect of banning order is not just to take people out of the sector for a while but for them to be changed characters if they are to come back. Some training or proof that they have improved their standards would be beneficial. However, given the reassurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 16, page 10, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) The court may issue a rent repayment order as provided in Chapter 4 of this Part during prosecution of a landlord or letting agent for a banning order offence.
(6) The court may issue a rent repayment order as provided in Chapter 4 once prosecution of a landlord or letting agent for a housing related offence has commenced and before proceedings have concluded.”
This amendment would allow the court to issue a rent repayment order whilst prosecution for a banning order or housing related offence is underway.
The amendment would allow the court to issue a rent repayment order at the same time as prosecuting for a banning order or housing related offence. We are no doubt all aware of the pressures on court services in this country and the pressures on time and resource. Accessing court services costs money whether you are a tenant or a local housing authority and court fees and legal representation can be an unnecessary burden.
I hope the Minister will be able to outline what conversations he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice about the further pressures that will be placed on court services. Most banning orders will follow a criminal conviction, and this will provide a perfect opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. During the court procedure it could be appropriate for the court to make a decision on a rent repayment order. The current alternative, as proposed in the Bill, will be for one court case for a criminal conviction and then for the local housing authority to—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Mr Thomas, it is a discourtesy to be speaking. Will you calm down? You move amendments, you speak to the debate, you raise questions and you debate a number of issues. Please calm down. I call Teresa Pearce.
Teresa Pearce
Thank you, Sir Alan. The current alternative, as proposed in the Bill, will be for one court case for the criminal conviction and then for the local housing authority to apply for a rent repayment order, requiring a whole new court case. That would lead to greater pressure not only on court time but on the time of local authorities that would have to complete the processes necessary to bring it to court. The court could have the power to provide for a rent repayment order when prosecuting a landlord or letting agent for a banning order offence and a housing-related offence.
In addition, that alternative would put further pressure on tenants, many of whom would be unable to seek redress for a rent repayment order through the financial hurdles they need to cross. In written evidence Crisis and the Housing Law Practitioners Association showed support for amendments that would give judges the power to issue a rent repayment order. Crisis noted the lack of claims made for rent repayment orders elsewhere in the sector and noted:
“Currently very few claims are made for RROs, largely because prosecutions are very low and tenants find it difficult to apply to the First Tier Tribunal to do so. Crisis would be supportive of amendments that would give judges the power to issue a RRO when they prosecute a landlord. This would help reduce costs/burdens to local authorities and tenants, who would have to make a claim to the First Tier Tribunal for a RRO following a successful prosecution.”
The Housing Law Practitioners Association suggested in written evidence that, in addition, courts
“should be given power to make a ‘banning order on conviction’. Civil restrictions flowing from criminal convictions are now a very common aspect of our law…It would provide a quick and simple route for those ‘clear’ cases where it is obvious that the landlord/agent should be banned, e.g. a conviction for unlawful eviction, violence against a tenant, fraud against the housing benefit authorities…It will also help to ensure that the residents of any local authority which is reluctant to exercise the new powers (perhaps because of budgetary constraints) receive some protection against rogue landlords”.
It is clear to Opposition Members that it would be beneficial for an amendment to allow courts to provide a rent repayment order when prosecuting for a banning order or housing-related offence. For those reasons, we would like the Minister to consider allowing courts to issue a rent repayment order at the same time as they are prosecuting.
Mr Jones
The amendment would insert a subsection that would enable the courts to make a rent repayment order against a landlord or property agent while a prosecution for a banning order offence is under way but prior to conviction.
Giving courts those powers presupposes guilt and undermines the presumption of innocence required for a fair trial. The amendment’s proposals also pose logistical challenges, in particular in the involvement of two distinct sentencing bodies. Rent repayment orders are civil sanctions issued by the first-tier tribunal and are issued on application by a local authority or the tenant. Magistrates courts deal with housing offences that are criminal. Since the magistrates courts do not deal with civil sanctions against rogue landlords and property agents, the amendment would burden them with a new and unnecessary responsibility. If the magistrates court did not convict, the court would also have wasted its time.
Mr Thomas
I understand the concern about civil and criminal law and the first-tier tribunal as opposed to the magistrates court, but if a landlord were taken to the magistrates court and convicted of poor practice towards a tenant, why could the magistrates court not refer the case to the first-tier tribunal to consider the rent repayment order? At least in that way, it would achieve the spirit of what the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead seeks to tease out.
Mr Jones
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. In that regard, as he knows, the magistrates court can hear the case. If the court decides that the person who has breached the banning order is guilty, it can impose a criminal sanction against the individual or individuals involved through a fine or, as I mentioned earlier in my comments, a prison sentence. We must draw a distinction between that and a civil penalty that can be applied for in the county court. At that point, as he knows, local authorities can bring the civil action to trial and obtain a rent repayment order.
The hon. Gentleman’s point is interesting and requires further consideration. I am thinking through the matter on my feet, but it requires more careful consideration, and I am certainly willing to listen to his comments and take them away from the Committee.
Teresa Pearce
This is more of a probing amendment, so I am happy to withdraw it, but I ask the Minister to keep a close eye on the issue. We do not want the fact that some people find it difficult to access the courts to mean that they do not get the justice that they deserve. For instance, a couple of my local courts are overcrowded with cases at the moment, and people are having to wait a very long time for an inefficient service. I would not want that to get in the way of what we are trying to achieve in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 2—Revocation or variation of banning orders.
Mr Jones
Clause 16 provides that a banning order must specify the length of time for which the person is banned from the activity specified in the order. As we discussed earlier, the minimum term is six months. It also provides that the banning order can contain exceptions, which can be time-limited or for the duration of the order. The exceptions may apply in cases, for example, where a landlord needs time to bring existing tenancies to an end, or where a letting agent needs a grace period to wind down its activities.
New clause 2 ensures that in appropriate cases, the person subject to the banning order can have it revoked or varied where the convictions relied on to obtain the banning order have been overturned. The tribunal must revoke the banning order. If some but not all of the convictions have been overturned, or if the convictions have become spent, the tribunal may revoke the order. The tribunal will also be able to vary an order, for example to reduce the length of the banning order or make exceptions to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Financial penalty for breach of banning order
Amendment made: Amendment 13, in clause 17, page 10, line 13, leave out
“person has breached a banning order”
and insert
“person’s conduct amounts to an offence under section (Offence of breach of banning order)”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment is consequential on NC.
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 17, page 10, line 15, leave out
“that applied for the banning order”
and insert
“for the area in which the housing to which the conduct relates is situated”
This amendment changes which local housing authority may impose a financial penalty where a person breaches a banning order. At the moment the authority that originally applied for the banning order is responsible for imposing a penalty; the amendment will make the authority where the breach occurs responsible.
Amendment 14 allows a local housing authority in whose area a person is acting in breach of a banning order to apply for a civil financial penalty against the person. New clause 3 makes the breach of a banning order a criminal offence, so the imposition of a financial penalty is an alternative to prosecution, but the local authority cannot impose a civil penalty unless it is satisfied that the offence is being or has been committed.
A local housing authority cannot impose a civil penalty when the person has been convicted in court of a breach of a banning order or where a prosecution has begun in relation to the same conduct; and the prosecution may not be brought against the person who has had a civil penalty imposed against them in respect of the same conduct. Subject to a right of appeal, the financial penalty that can be imposed for a breach is at the discretion of the local housing authority subject to a maximum of £5,000.
Local housing authorities will be able to retain fines they receive as income. Under subsection (7), the Secretary of State may make regulations specifying how financial penalties recovered under the clause are to be dealt with. Broadly speaking, we envisage that such sums should be used in connection with the authority’s private sector housing functions, but we will discuss the details of how the income is to be applied with key interested bodies before making those regulations.
Schedule 1 sets out the procedures for imposing a financial penalty. The authority must serve a notice of intent on the person whom it intends to charge the penalty to. That notice must be served within six months of the authority having sufficient evidence of the breach, or, in the case of an ongoing breach, within the period of six months from when the breach last occurs.
The notice must specify the amount of penalty the authority proposes to charge, the reason for imposing the penalty, and that there is a right to make representations within 28 days. After the period for making representations has expired, the local housing authority must decide whether to impose the financial penalty and, if so, the amount. If it decides to impose a penalty, the authority must serve a final notice specifying the amount of penalty, the reason for imposing it, how it is to be paid, and by when. The final notice must also provide information about the right to appeal and the consequences of failing to pay. Payment must be made within 28 days of the service of the final notice unless there is an appeal against it.
Paragraph 10 of schedule 1 deals with appeals against a final notice. An appeal is to the first-tier tribunal and can be made against a decision to impose the penalty or against the amount and must be made within 28 days of the service of the final notice. If an appeal is made, the final notice is suspended until the tribunal makes a decision or the appeal is withdrawn. The tribunal may confirm, vary or cancel the final notice. Paragraph 11 provides that if a person fails to pay the penalty, the local authority can recover it through proceedings in the county court.
Finally, clause 17(9) enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance that local housing authorities must have regard to when imposing financial penalties for breaching banning orders.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Amendments made: 15, in clause 17, page 10, line 17, leave out from “same” to end of line 20 and insert “conduct”
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 17, page 10, line 22, leave out
“, but must not be more than £5,000.”
This amendment would allow for an unlimited financial penalty for a breach of a banning order.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 102, in clause 17, page 10, line 22, leave out “£5,000” and insert “£20,000”
This amendment would increase the financial penalty imposed for breach of a banning order from a maximum of £5,000 to a maximum of £20,000.
Teresa Pearce
Amendments 101 and 102 go together. Clause 17 sets out the financial penalty for breach of a banning order and we are seeking, first, to remove the limit for the breach of a banning order, and, secondly, to change the maximum fine from £5,000 to £20,000. As was said earlier, we support the measures to tackle rogue landlords, to ensure security and safety for tenants and to penalise criminal landlords. We believe that banning orders should help drive up standards and protect tenants, but for banning orders to work they must penalise and target the few criminal landlords who bring down the name of the private rented sector. Those who breach a banning order deserve to be penalised appropriately.
For a criminal landlord, who may have committed a crime such as violently securing entry or harassing their occupiers, to be given a banning order and to breach it and only to face a fine of £5,000 is wrong. It is not in keeping with the spirit of this part of the Bill to tackle such rogue landlords. If a landlord has committed such an offence and gets caught letting a property in breach of that banning order, he will be fined less than he would if he got caught speeding on his way home. If a rogue landlord owns multiple properties, particularly in London, where market rates are obviously much higher, he could raise the funds to pay that fine in just a few weeks, so I believe there is no deterrent. Why was £5,000 thought to be an appropriate maximum financial penalty? By removing the upper limit, the Bill would provide a greater deterrent to those considering breaching banning orders. It would penalise further and recover extra moneys from criminal landlords, which would help drive up standards by ensuring that criminal landlords do not return to the sector.
Secondly, we are proposing to change the maximum to £20,000 from £5,000. That will create a further deterrent to criminal landlords considering breaching a banning order and will penalise those who do. As I said, if a rogue landlord owns multiple properties, particularly in London, where the market rates are high, it would not take very long at all for them to raise the money to pay £5,000. We believe that £20,000 is much more of a deterrent. The figure of £20,000 was drawn from the financial penalty for letting a licensed house in multiple occupation to more than the maximum number permitted. Therefore, we believe that there is a precedent for that level of fine. I would like to hear from the Minister why £5,000 was considered to be appropriate and what his view would be on a higher figure.
Mr Thomas
I support my hon. Friend’s amendment and I shall quote a number of examples which have received coverage. They are examples of rogue landlords and how they have been dealt with by the courts.
I draw attention to an article in the Conservative party’s newspaper of choice, The Guardian. According to that article, figures released last summer through a freedom of information case against the Ministry of Justice reveal that there were just over 2,000 convictions of rogue landlords between 2006 and 2014—that is, nicely, the last four years of a great Government and the first four years of a dismal Government for us to look at. The resulting fines in those 2,000 cases were just £3 million—less than £1,500 per conviction. One of those convicted was a man called Andreas Stavrou Antoniades, a landlord who converted a north London terrace into nine flats. He was given the maximum fine at the time, some £20,000—the equivalent of little more than two month’s rent from one property. The article goes on to say that the campaign group Generation Rent has suggested that criminal landlords rake in some £5 billion in rent a year.
The Minister has said that there are, in his estimate, some 10,500 rogue landlords. Clearly, if there is consensus on the Committee that we want action against those rogue landlords, we need housing authorities to move quickly. If they are going to take action quickly against rogue landlords, inevitably there will be a desire within housing authorities to know that the sanctions imposed on those landlords have real and significant teeth that will be a real deterrent to the often very rich individuals who benefit from very poor behaviour, and get them to change their behaviour.
At the moment, particularly in London, where rents are so expensive, we run the risk of fines just being written off as a business expense. I encourage the Minister to look with favour on my hon. Friend’s amendment, to send a much stronger and stiffer signal to stop criminal and other bad behaviour.
Mr Jones
I hear what the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead has said. In the spirit of co-operation, as was the case earlier, I also hear what the hon. Member for Harrow West has said, albeit he said it in a fashion that was not as subtle and conciliatory as that of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, who is on the Opposition Front Bench.
These amendments would increase the financial penalty for a breach of a banning order, either by making it unlimited or by raising the upper limit to £20,000. It is right that the breach of a banning order carries a strong penalty. This Committee has already considered Government amendments to make the breach of a banning order a criminal offence and, as we discussed earlier, a banning order—if taken to its ultimate conclusion—can end in a ban for life against a rogue landlord. However, these amendments would mean that a breach of a banning order could still result in a civil penalty as an alternative alongside the option of the criminal prosecution, which I mentioned earlier and which we discussed at greater length earlier.
I have certainly heard the strength of feeling from the Opposition Front Bench and from the hon. Member for Harrow West. We are considering this issue carefully. Obviously, we want penalties that are set high enough to ensure that they make a real difference and have the desired effect on rogue landlords. So, we hear the arguments that a limit of £5,000 may not be sufficient, and on the basis that we are willing to look at what the hon. Lady has put forward and consider it on Report, I hope Opposition Members will agree to withdraw the amendment and enable the Government to consider these points further, and the level of the penalty, before the Bill comes back on Report.
Teresa Pearce
Given what the Minister has said—I am taking him at his word—it seems that we may have some agreement here, and given that he seems to have intimated to the Committee that the Government will look at the level of the penalty and perhaps increase it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 16, in clause 17, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) The responsible local housing authority may not impose a financial penalty in respect of any conduct amounting to an offence under section (Offence of breach of banning order) if—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence under that section in respect of the conduct, or
(b) criminal proceedings for the offence have been instituted against the person in respect of the conduct and the proceedings have not been concluded.”
This amendment ensures that a person does not end up with a financial penalty as well as a conviction for the criminal offence created by NC3.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Mr Thomas
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 17, page 10, line 27, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment would ensure local housing authorities would be able to retain any financial penalties recovered under Clause 17.
I hope that the Minister continues to feel in a sufficiently good mood to consider this amendment with enthusiasm. If he wanted to intervene on me very early on and say that it is indeed his intention that local housing authorities will be able to retain any financial penalties recovered under this clause, clearly I would not need to dwell any further on the case for the amendment. As he has stayed firmly in his seat, focusing on his notes, let me make the case a little further. Quite rightly, the Minister alluded to the fact that, as a result of this legislation, it would be incumbent on housing authorities to take action whenever they see a rogue landlord in action and can gather evidence of malpractice. I suggest to him and to the Committee that we have to live in the real world. In a case of declining budgets and cuts, local authorities on occasion have to make tough choices, and it may be that other parts of a housing authority’s responsibilities have to take precedent. Although some prosecutions may take place, there may be other prosecutions that might not go ahead, if additional resources are not available.
My amendment seeks to ensure that the resources that are recovered as a result of clause 17 go to the housing authority, so that they can be invested in action against rogue landlords, and so that there can be confidence that we will see progress in getting the Minister’s figure of 10,500 rogue landlords down to a better limit, more quickly. It cannot be that any of us would want to have such a large figure of rogue landlords operating, feeling that they can do so willy-nilly and that if they get taken to task by the courts, that will almost be by accident. I think the Minister said that he expected just 600 cases a year as a result of the new legislation. That suggests that it will take us a very long time before we can eliminate the full list of rogue landlords.
I give credit to the Government for wanting to bring forward legislation to deal with the issue, but I gently suggest that we need to make sure that those we are going to vest with legislative power to do more against rogue landlords have the resources available to them, so that they have the means to take action and use these powers. My humble amendment perhaps offers a small glint of light to hard-pressed housing authorities that there will be some additional resource that they might get as a result of their efforts to bring bad landlords to justice, which they can use to reinvest in taking further measures against other rogue landlords.
Mr Jones
The amendment, as drafted, would have the effect of removing the power to make regulations specifying how local authorities are to deal with fines received under this clause. I have looked at the clause put forward by the hon. Gentleman and I think there is a little confusion. He refers to “fines” within his clause, but I think he may mean civil penalties. That said, local housing authorities will be able to retain the penalties that they receive as income. Under subsection (7) the Secretary of State may make regulations specifying how financial penalties recovered under clause 17 are to be dealt with. Broadly speaking, we envisage that such sums should be used in connection with an authority’s private housing sector function, but we will discuss the details of how the income is to be applied with the key interested bodies before we make those regulations.
Teresa Pearce
Is the Minister saying that those penalties would be ring-fenced for the specific purpose of bringing the private rented sector up to a reasonable standard? Is that what he is intimating?
Mr Jones
We are saying that those penalties should go to the local authority. We want to consult with interested bodies, particularly the local authorities, in relation to how we make these regulations and how they work; whether we ring-fence or not and whether the money is put toward the private rented sector housing function of an authority or not.
As I have made clear, our intention is that the money that is recovered should be used. This is the basis on which we shall discuss this with interested parties: it should be used for the private rented sector housing function within the particular authority in question.
Mr Thomas
In the spirit of the Minister’s response, I see no reason to press the amendment to a vote. Consultation is a wonderful thing, but I struggle to see why the Minister needs to consult. Why can he not write it clearly into the legislation that the money recovered will go to the local authority? However, I recognise that is the Government’s intention and I welcome the clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
Clause 17 provides that the local housing authority that made the application for a banning order may impose a financial penalty against the person for whom it was made, if that person is in breach of the order. Subject to the right of appeal, the financial penalty that can be imposed for a breach is at the discretion of the local housing authority. As I said previously, that is subject to a maximum of £5,000. However, under subsection (4), if that breach continues for more than six months, a further penalty can be imposed in respect of each additional six-month period. This would mean, for example, that if a landlord had been granted an exception for six months, as referred to in clause 16(4), to bring existing tenancies to an end, but at the end of that period had not done so, the landlord would be subject to the first financial penalty. However, if six months later he had still not brought the tenancy to an end, he would be subject to a second financial penalty.
Under subsection (7) the Secretary of State may make regulations specifying how financial penalties recovered under the clause are to be dealt with, as we discussed in the debate on amendment 94. Broadly speaking, we envisage that such sums should be used in connection with the authority’s private sector housing functions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Financial penalty for breach of banning order
Amendments made: 50, in schedule 1, page 70, line 5, leave out “for breaching a banning order” and insert “under section17”
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
Amendment 51, in schedule 1, page 70, line 10, leave out “person’s breach of the banning order” and insert “conduct to which the financial penalty relates”
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
Amendment 52, in schedule 1, page 70, line 11, leave out “in breach of the banning order” and insert “continuing to engage in the conduct”
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
Amendment 53, in schedule 1, page 70, line 11, leave out the second “breach” and insert “conduct”
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
Amendment 54, in schedule 1, page 70, line 13, leave out “breach” and insert “conduct”
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
Amendment 55, in schedule 1, page 70, line 15, leave out “breach” and insert “conduct”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
Question proposed, that the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Mr Jones
Schedule 1 sets out the procedures for imposing a financial penalty. The authority must serve a notice of intent on the person to whom it intends to charge the penalty, but notice must be served within six months of the authority having sufficient evidence of the breach or, in the case of an ongoing breach, within a period of six months from when the breach last occurred.
The notice must specify the amount of the penalty the authority proposes to charge; the reason for imposing the penalty; and that there is a right to make representations within 28 days. After the period for making representations has expired, the local housing authority must decide whether to impose the financial penalty and, if so, the amount. If it decides to impose the penalty, the authority must serve a final notice specifying the amount of the penalty, the reason for imposing it, how it is to be paid and by when.
Mr Jones
The purpose of clause 21 is to prohibit a landlord who is subject to a banning order from selling, gifting, assigning or leasing residential property to a prohibited person. Subsection (1) therefore provides that no unauthorised transfer to a prohibited person of an interest or an estate in land is permitted. Subsection (3) provides that a transaction is unauthorised unless it has been approved by the first-tier tribunal. Where an unauthorised transfer has taken place, the contract would be void and unenforceable under subsection (2).
Subsections (4) and (5) explain who “prohibited persons” are. They include persons associated with the landlord, such as: a relative; a business partner of the landlord; a person associated with such a partner; or the business partner of a person associated with the landlord. “Prohibited persons” also includes a company of which the landlord or an associated person is an officer, or any other company in which the landlord or an associated person is a shareholder or has a financial interest, or, where a landlord is a body corporate, any body corporate that has an officer in common with the landlord.
As the header of this part of the Bill states, the measure is about “Anti-avoidance”. The clause is designed to prevent landlords subject to banning orders from continuing to control or influence the management of a residential property through companies or people with whom they are closely associated, but who are not themselves subject to banning orders. The legislation is not intended to prevent the person from ever being able to transfer property to a prohibited person, but they would need to satisfy the tribunal that the transfer was genuine and that there was no intention to let the property. A parent could therefore gift a house to a son or daughter who intended to occupy the property.
The Chair
What the Minister has said is slightly wrong. We are currently considering amendments 56, 57 and 58 to schedule 3.
Mr Jones
Sir Alan, I apologise to you and to the Committee.
Amendment 58 is concerned with an appeal against the second management order, where a final management order would otherwise run out before the appeal is decided. The amendment provides for the final management order to continue in force until the appeal is decided. Amendments 56 and 57 are related drafting amendments.
It may be helpful if I briefly mention what schedule 3 does. It applies in a modified form the management order provisions in part 4 of the Housing Act 2004 to properties that are subject to a banning order. Although a local authority has the power to make this new type of management order, it is not required to do so and the banned landlord and certain other interested parties, such as a joint owner and mortgagee, can appeal to the first-tier tribunal against an order.
Management orders can be used, for example, to secure that tenants whose landlords have been banned from letting property are protected during the continuance of their contractual tenancies. The orders can secure that vulnerable tenants do not need to be rehoused because their landlord has been barred from being involved in the management of the property. They also ensure that properties need not sit empty because they are subject to a banning order against the legal owner but can continue to be rented out.
There are two types of orders: interim management orders and final management orders. No local housing authority should incur additional costs because it has made a management order. Any surplus income can be retained by the authority and used for purposes that will be specified in the regulations made by the Secretary of State. Broadly speaking, we envisage that such sums should be used in connection with the authority’s private sector housing functions, as the Committee has discussed.
Amendment 56 agreed to.
Amendments made: 57, in schedule 3, page 76, line 22, after “orders)” insert “is amended as follows.
‘( ) ”
This is consequential on amendment 58.
Amendment 58, in schedule 3, page 76, line 29, at end insert—
‘( ) In subsection (5), for “and” substitute “to”.
( ) After subsection (6) insert—
(6A) If—
(a) the existing order was made under section 113(3A) or (6A), and
(b) the date on which the new order comes into force in relation to the house (or part of it) following the disposal of the appeal is later than the date on which the existing order would cease to have effect apart from this subsection,
the existing order continues in force until that later date.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This is designed to preserve a final management order in cases where a replacement order has been made but is in the process of being appealed.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21
Prohibition on certain disposals
Amendments made: 17, in clause 21, page 11, line 21, leave out “a director, secretary or other” and insert “an”
This amendment leaves out unnecessary words. “Officer” is defined by clause 48 to include directors and secretaries so there is no need to mention them specifically.
Amendment 18, in clause 21, page 11, line 23, at end insert “, or
( ) in a case where the landlord is a body corporate, any body corporate that has an officer in common with the landlord.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment is designed to ensure that a landlord that is a company cannot transfer property to another company that has an officer in common. “Officer” is given a broad definition by clause 48.
Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Database of rogue landlords and letting agents
Amendment made: 19, in clause 22, page 11, line 34, leave out “letting” and insert “property”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 2.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The clause requires the Secretary of State to create and operate a national database of rogue landlords and property agents in England. The purpose of such a database is to enable local housing authorities to identify persons who are banned from being a landlord or from being involved in residential letting agency property management for work. It can also be used to identify other landlords and property agents who have been convicted of a banning order offence but who are not currently subject to a banning order. This will enable local housing authorities to identify rogues operating in their areas so that they can monitor them and target enforcement action against them when necessary. Subsection (2) provides that local housing authorities are responsible for populating and maintaining the database. Subsection (3) requires that, in connection with that, the Secretary of State must ensure that the database can be updated and edited.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Duty to include person with banning order
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 23, page 12, line 5, leave out from “must” to end of line 6 and insert
“make an entry in the database in respect of a person if—
(a) a banning order has been made against the person following an application by the authority, and
(b) no entry was made under section 24, before the banning order was made, on the basis of a conviction for the offence to which the banning order relates.”
This amendment ensures that where a person is included in the database of rogue landlords and letting agents under clause 24, there is no conflict with the requirement to make an entry in the database if a banning order is made in respect of the same offence.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 21 and 23 to 33.
Government new clause 6—Removal or variation of entries made under section 24.
Government new clause 7—Requests for exercise of powers under section (Removal or variation of entries made under section 24) and appeals.
Mr Jones
Clause 23 makes it mandatory that a person against whom a banning order has been made must be entered on to the database. It is the duty of the local housing authority that made the successful application for the banning order to make the entry. Amendment 20 clarifies that a person may not be entered on to the database under this clause if they are already on it in relation to the same offence under clause 24. The effect of amendment 21 is to clarify that more than one entry in the database can be made in respect of one person, in order to deal with situations in which a person is entered on to the database for one offence but subsequently commits further offences. Once a person is entered on to the database for the first banning order offence, the details of any subsequent banning order offence can be added to the database.
Amendments 23 and 26 to 33 are consequential on amendment 21. New clause 6 sets up a process whereby a person may in certain circumstances have the entry against them removed from the database or the length of it reduced. A person’s entry must be removed if all the convictions for which they are entered on the database are overturned. The entry may be removed if some but not all of the convictions have been overturned, or if the offences have become spent. In those circumstances the local housing authority may also reduce the length of time the entry is to be maintained on the database.
New clause 7 provides that a person whose details have been entered on to the database may apply in writing to the local housing authority that made the entry for it to be removed. The person can also ask for the length of the entry to be reduced. If the local authority decides not to comply with the request in the application, it must notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for its decision and give details of how to appeal. An appeal against the local housing authority’s decision not to comply with the request goes to the first-tier tribunal, and the applicant has 21 days from receiving the decision notice to appeal, unless the tribunal exercises its discretion to allow a late appeal. The tribunal may order the local housing authority to remove or reduce the length of the period of the entry.
Amendment 20 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The clause makes it mandatory that a person against whom a banning order has been made must be entered on to the database. It is the duty of the local housing authority that made the successful application for the banning order to make the entry. The entry must be maintained for the duration of the ban and must be removed when the person ceases to be banned.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Power to include person convicted of banning order offence
Amendments made: 21, in clause 24, page 12, line 10, leave out
“enter a person in the database”
and insert
“make an entry in the database in respect of a person”.
This amendment clarifies the drafting to ensure that it is possible to make more than one entry in the database in respect of the same person. This might occur if a person is convicted of a new banning order offence after he or she has been included in the database in respect of an earlier banning order offence. A person may have several concurrent entries although for anyone searching the database they may in practice be displayed as a single entry.
Amendment 22, in clause 24, page 12, line 13, leave out “letting” and insert “property”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 2.
Amendment 23, in clause 24, page 12, line 14, leave out
“a person may be entered”
and insert
“an entry may be made”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 21.
Amendment 24, in clause 24, page 12, line 18, after “made” insert
“(or that period as reduced in accordance with section (Removal or variation of entries made under section 24)”
This is consequential on NC6.
Amendment 25, in clause 24, page 12, line 19, at end insert—
‘( ) Subsection (3)(a) does not prevent an entry being removed early in accordance under section (Removal or variation of entries made under section 24)”.
This is consequential on NC6.
Amendment 26, in clause 24, page 12, line 22, leave out “include a person” and insert “make an entry” —(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 21.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The clause enables a local housing authority to make an entry in the database in respect of a person who has been convicted of a banning order offence, but only if the person was a residential landlord or property agent at the time the offence was committed. The proviso is to ensure that a person who is convicted of an offence that is in its nature a banning order offence but who was not acting as a landlord or property agent when the offence was committed cannot be placed on the database. The entry in the database must be for a fixed term and must be removed after that term has expired.
Mr Jones
The clause sets out the procedure that a local housing authority must follow before it can make an entry on the database in respect of a person under its powers to do so in clause 24. The authority must give a person whose details are proposed to be entered on the database notice of that decision, which must state the period for which it is intended that the details will be held on it. In accordance with subsection (2)(b), that cannot be less than two years.
The notice period must not be less than 21 days from when the decision notice is given. Only after that period has expired can a local authority make an entry on the database, provided that no appeal is brought against the decision. The notice itself must explain that the person has the right to appeal. If an appeal is made before the end of the notice period, the local housing authority cannot make the entry until the appeal has been decided or withdrawn.
Subsection (6) provides that no notice to make an entry on the database in respect of a person can be given later than six months after the person’s conviction for the banning order offence to which the notice relates. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Appeals
Amendment made: 31, in clause 26, page 13, line 7, leave out
“include the person in the database”
and insert
“make the entry in the database in respect of the person”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 21.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The clause is concerned with a person’s right to appeal against the local housing authority’s decision to make an entry in the database in respect of the person or in relation to the length of time for which the entry is to be maintained. Any such appeal must be brought before the end of the notice period in the decision notice in clause 25(2). However, under clause 26(3), the first-tier tribunal may allow longer to appeal if it is satisfied that there is a good reason for the delay.
Subsection (4) provides that a tribunal may confirm, vary or cancel the decision notice regarding entering the person on the database. If it decides to vary the decision notice, that variation will be to the length of time of the inclusion of the person on the database. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Order. A Division is taking place in the House. Members will want to go and vote, so I will suspend the Committee. I would like the break to be for 20 minutes rather than the usual 15, because I want the Opposition and Government Whips to come back in 15 minutes, and for the Front Benchers to stand by in case they are needed to liaise. I hope that is agreeable.
Mr Jones
The clause provides that a local housing authority can ask a person to provide certain information in order to decide whether to make an entry in the database in respect of that person. That information may include details of previous convictions for banning order offences committed by that person, or any banning orders that have previously been made against the person.
The clause also provides that the authority can ask for information to make and keep the entry up to date. That may include details of the properties owned, managed and let by the person, subject to the entry, and requiring information to be provided about matters such as changes of address of the person entered on to the database, their trading name or their portfolio of properties.
Mr Thomas
I welcome the clause but wonder whether it goes far enough. For example, will the power to require information to be provided for the purpose of entering somebody on the database be extended to HMRC—is it already having to provide information to make a judgment? Where a housing authority is not sure whether someone else is part of an organisation that is acting as a rogue landlord, will it be able to be subject to the same power to require information as someone who is clearly the main focus for this particular power? Will it just have to be directed at one person, or can other people be covered by it; and are a series of other public bodies going to be covered by the power to require information as well?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Before I conclude my remarks on clause 29, I will respond to them.
Subsections (3) to (5) provide that it is an offence not to comply with a request for information or to provide false or misleading information in respect of such a request. If convicted of an offence, the person is liable to be fined. The hon. Gentleman has tried to broaden this out a number of times—earlier he asked for other organisations to have involvement in this process. As I said earlier, however, this is a power for local authorities only. It is not a matter for the tax authorities and therefore HMRC would not have the information.
Mr Thomas
I understand the Minister’s point. If the housing authority has suspicions that an individual may be a rogue landlord, they might be able to make a better judgment about where a person’s income is coming from, how extensive their assets are, and so on if they could access information from HMRC. Under this clause, could the planning authority make a request of HMRC and expect HMRC to have to respond to provide that information?
Mr Jones
As I said before, the power that the hon. Gentleman refers to is only vested in local authorities; but I am aware that housing authorities can speak to organisations such as HMRC and request information, if that information enables them to further a case that they may have against a person, persons or company.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention to make this information on the database available only to local authorities, or will it be available to members of the public, too?
Mr Jones
Let me put it this way: the actual banning orders made by the lower-tier tribunal will be public information, but because of data protection laws, the register of rogue landlords will only be available to local authorities on the nationwide database that I mentioned earlier. The information will also be available to the Secretary of State, but that will only be available for statistical and research purposes. The Committee will be covering this matter in more detail when we discuss a later amendment.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on the stand part debate. I would not want to give the impression, Sir Alan, to you or to Conservative Members, that I oppose the clause. I think it is a worthwhile additional power. It prompts the question, though, whether housing authorities will be able to have enough access to potential sources of information about possible rogue landlords. I used the example of HMRC, but perhaps the example of the banks might be an appropriate one to offer up. The potential rogue landlord must have a bank account somewhere, so could Harrow council, wanting to exercise its powers here to crack down on any rogue landlords operating in Harrow, use this clause to go to HSBC or Lloyds Bank and say, “We have real concerns about individual X being a rogue landlord, but we need to check out what their level of income is and where that income appears to be coming from. Could you provide the following information to us?” I would have thought that that is a reasonable request from a housing authority wanting to get a grip on these 10,500 rogue landlords the Minister spoke about, some of whom, presumably, must be in each of our local authority areas. If we are really going to crack down on this and take it seriously, as I know the Minister wants to do, we have to make sure that housing authorities have all the powers they need.
If the clause does not cover the potential for a housing authority to make a reasonable request and expect that body to provide information back, the Minister might want to reflect before Report on whether the scope of the clause needs to be broadened. I think of constituents of mine who have got in touch with HMRC and have struggled to get a coherent answer back. Of course, the local housing authority can put in a request now, without any additional powers, but there is no guarantee that HMRC would reply in good time for that housing authority to make a judgment as to whether a rogue landlord is operating in their vicinity. I ask the Minister to reflect. We would expect a rogue landlord to have had some dealings with HMRC. We would certainly expect a rogue landlord to have bank accounts or to have had some history of dealing with the big banks. Why should the housing authority not be able to engage with those bodies and expect sensible, serious answers to their requests for help about named individuals?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I do not think it is an unreasonable request that I consider his comments, particularly in relation to data sharing and HMRC. However, much of the data sharing and much of the evidence he talks about would, of course, have been obtained and presented to the first-tier tribunal when the original banning order was made. Obviously, this register is to convey that information, but I will certainly reflect on what the hon. Gentleman says before Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Access to database
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 30, page 14, line 8, after “England”, insert “and the Greater London Authority”
The amendment will allow the Mayor of London access to the database to inform and strengthen the Mayor’s London Rental Standard.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 80, in clause 31, page 14, line 22, at end insert—
‘(3) The Greater London Authority may use information in the database for statistical or research purposes.”
See explanatory statement for amendment 79.
Government new clause 5—Power to require information.
Stephen Hammond
I shall not detain the Committee long, but these are significant and helpful amendments for the Mayor of London, in particular, and the Greater London Authority. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Harrow West when he said that the proposals were very much for local authorities to have access to the database. These two amendments work together. I take his point that the powers are for local authorities, but I hope he will accept that in London the Greater London Authority has a strategic role, if not a direct role, in housing, in assessing the overall housing demand, and in planning. It obviously generates some of the housing supply in London, so I hope that he will consider that there is a strategic role, but more importantly, access to the database would allow the Mayor’s London rental standard to be better informed.
These two small amendments seek to do two things: to put on to the face of the Bill that the Greater London Authority should have access to the database, and to limit its powers regarding the use of that information to exactly those of the Secretary of State, which are to use it for statistical or research purposes.
Stephen Hammond
I have had various discussions about a number of amendments with the Mayor and his housing adviser, and they have indicated that they would regard these amendments as perhaps not essential but helpful, purely on the basis of better informing the London rental standard.
Mr Thomas
I rise to speak in support of the hon. Gentleman. I hesitate to destroy his career by doing so, but if it offers him any help, I will now champion his future career, so that his Whips are hopefully unable to spread doom and gloom about it.
This point about the London rental standard is important, because, good thing though it is, it does not seem to be having a huge impact. The brutal truth is that the Mayor had hoped to have 100,000 landlords registered by the end of next year. At the end of last year, as I understand it, about 15,000 were registered, at best. That does not suggest that the Mayor is on course to succeed in his aim of having 100,000 landlords or letting agents signed up, which, given the scale of the housing crisis and the importance of the private rented sector in London, is a real concern.
It is worth pointing out some statistics from Shelter, which reports that 25% of Londoners rent privately and that figure is expected to rise by 2020, when the next Labour Government will be elected, to one in three, which is all the more reason urgently to seek to drive up standards in the private rented sector. Although clause 30 is merely about access to a database, I encourage the Minister, when reflecting on the debate we have just had on clause 29, to ask his officials and organisations such as Shelter whether there might be merit in requiring other statutory bodies to support the database and to provide information to it.
Mr Thomas
I might do that on Report, now that the hon. Gentleman has encouraged me. However, hopefully in the interventions that I have made, I might have encouraged the more reasonable of the two Ministers to fight the fight within the Department and strengthen the teeth that are available to housing authorities to fight this problem. I do not know whether the hon. Member for South Norfolk, when he meets housing officials in South Norfolk Council, talks about these issues. I know that he talks to them a lot about self-build and custom build—that is excellent news—but does he go into detail about the powers that they will have under the Bill in other areas? I hope that he does, and if he has not up till now, I hope that he will in future.
I apologise to you, Sir Alan, as I think I have been led astray by the hon. Member. We are, after all, talking about London and whether the London rental standard might benefit from the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I simply urge the Minister to embrace with enthusiasm the concerns expressed by colleagues on the Conservative Benches about the database.
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for Wimbledon for the amendment and for his comments. In my years in this House, I never thought it likely that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon could be a comrade of the hon. Member for Harrow West, but the hon. Member seems to think that they may be compatible. I am sure my hon. Friend has his own views on that point.
Mr Jones
Let me make some progress. Amendment 79 would allow the Greater London Authority access to the database on rogue landlords. We would be happy to grant the GLA access to the data for statistical and research purposes, however we would need to ensure that access was on an anonymised basis given that the database contains information about the relevant offences of which persons have been convicted, as well as details of properties owned. The data fall within the definition of “sensitive personal data” as set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 and may only be shared with organisations where strictly necessary and where at least one of the conditions set out in schedules 2 and 3 to the Act is met.
I would like to reassure my hon. Friend—and taking into account the comments made by the hon. Member for Harrow West—that we are taking on board the points that have been made today. We will give the matter further thought and I hope on that basis my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again. I do not understand why the Mayor of London should be such a controversial figure for the Minister not to want to share information. I appreciate there needs to be a bit of thought, and I appreciate that the Minister of State has been a bit grumpy today and that may be precluding the Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s room for manoeuvre. However, I hope the hon. Member for Wimbledon will be sufficiently robust in his attitude to the Minister’s answer to fight the cause for London and say that we need to make a decision now to strengthen the London rental stake.
Stephen Hammond
I think the hon. Member for Harrow West and I must have heard a different answer from my hon. Friend the Minister. I heard him say that if I could work with his officials to ensure that access to the database would be on an anonymised basis, he would bring forward on Report broadly the amendments I am proposing, but with the caveat that he wants anonymisation of the database. That would fulfil the Mayor’s purpose, because the Mayor wants access to the data for statistical and research purposes.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister has accepted the concept of the amendments. I am sure that he and I will be able to work together to bring forward some wording on Report—I am afraid I heard a slightly different conversation from the hon. Member for Harrow West. On that basis, given the Minister’s warm welcome for the concept and his warm words of reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move amendment 106, in clause 30, page 14, line 9, at end insert—
‘(2) Tenants and prospective tenants may establish whether an individual is listed on the database through their local housing authority.”
This amendment gives tenants and prospective tenants the ability to check with their local housing authority whether their current or prospective landlord or letting agent is listed.
We seek to amend clause 30 to give tenants and prospective tenants the ability to check with the local housing authority whether their current or prospective landlord or letting agent is listed on the database of rogue landlords or letting agents. We believe this simple amendment will fundamentally strengthen the measures in the Bill to tackle rogue landlords and will help to safeguard tenants from criminal landlords.
The amendment would allow tenants and prospective tenants to protect themselves from the select few landlords who breach their obligations towards tenants. At present, there is no scope in the proposals for tenants or prospective tenants to establish whether their landlord is on the database. There is no protection for tenants and no way for them to identify whether the landlord is subject to a banning order or not. The amendment seeks to enable tenants and prospective tenants to make an inquiry with their local housing authority, which could be answered with a simple no. If it were established that the landlord was indeed on the database, the local authority would be aware that a criminal landlord was operating in breach of their banning order.
Grahame M. Morris
That is a very important principle. Is there not an inconsistency in the Government’s approach? For example, they publish lists of employers who pay below the minimum wage—naming and shaming them— and Ofsted reports on school performance. That information is available. Is not the problem of rogue landlords in many ways a more serious matter and should the information not be more widely available?
Teresa Pearce
I agree that the more open and transparent the database is, the better it can ensure that standards are upheld. However, I have been contacted by a number of people who wish to see the database placed online, where it can be accessible to the public. Although I understand that and support their motives, a fully open database could lead to confusion. There could be landlords with similar names, they could be wrongly targeted or avoided by tenants, and any landlords who wish to reform following a conviction may be unable to find business. We are asking not for a fully open database, but tenants should be able to approach the local authority and ask whether someone they are about to rent a property from is on that database. The answer could be a no or a yes, in which case the local authority would know that that person was breaching their banning order.
A measure such as this has been met with support in the written evidence. Crisis noted its support for amendments that would allow local authorities to “share information”, which it believed would strengthen enforcement work. It noted the difficulty in targeting rogue landlords who move their business from one area to another. By allowing for a check, the database would become a greater deterrent. What deterrent is there for rogue landlords to be listed on a hidden database? They could take advantage of tenants, who would have no idea whether they had previously been convicted of a housing offence and no way of checking. With such checks, the database will provide for greater punishment of rogue landlords who engage in criminal activity, as they will know that that will be recorded and potentially made available to the public. At present, only local housing authorities can make those checks.
With such a check, standards will increase, as rogue and criminal landlords, following conviction of a housing offence, will be less likely to return to the sector and, even if they do, they will be found out faster. Tenants will therefore have greater power against rogue landlords and, with the local housing authority, will be able to root out the worst offenders. The database will also be of greater use to local housing authorities in enforcement work.
Grahame M. Morris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I rise in support of my hon. Friend. We welcome the creation of a database of rogue landlords that will allow local authorities to share information, but will the Minister clarify why it will not be more broadly accessible? As my hon. Friend said, the Opposition do not believe that the database should be freely available, but a prospective tenant should be able to check whether their potential landlord is a rogue landlord with criminal convictions.
There are precedents and consistency issues to consider. We are used to seeing Ofsted reports, and while concerns were raised about whether they added value, it is now generally accepted that they are a valuable tool for parents and society more broadly. The Care Quality Commission’s reports about care homes and GP services are shared not just with their commissioners. Indeed, these days even hygiene ratings in takeaways and restaurants are available for the public’s inspection. All that is available to help the public to make informed choices and question the quality of the services they receive. Therefore, there is certainly merit in allowing prospective tenants to check whether a prospective landlord or letting agent is or has been on the register, because that would help them to make an informed choice and secure decent housing. I hope the Minister will consider that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West referred to Shelter’s report, “Safe and Decent Homes”, and that organisation gave evidence to the Committee. This is a huge problem. The hon. Member for Peterborough said that only a relatively small number of landlords are rogue and criminal in their conduct.
Mr Thomas
I do not want to be seen as in any way chastising my hon. Friend, but while the hon. Member for Peterborough was indeed right to say that, proportionately, a relatively small number of landlords are rogue, the Minister alluded to a figure of, potentially, 10,500. That is by no definition a small number and suggests that there is a serious problem, although it nevertheless involves a small percentage of landlords.
Grahame M. Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I would not wish to argue with him, but the scale of the problem is considerable.
May I remind the Committee of Shelter’s written evidence, which indicates the scale of the problem? A third of privately rented homes do not meet the Government’s own decent homes standards and almost a fifth contain a hazard posing a serious danger to the health and safety of renters. More than six in 10 renters—61%—have experienced at least one of the following problems in their homes over the previous 12 months: damp and mould, which are hazardous to health; leaking roofs and windows; electrical hazards, which are dangerous for any renter, but in particular young children or elderly people; animal and insect infestations; and gas leaks.
The introduction of banning orders for rogue landlords is therefore important, and we should not underplay that importance. Having gone to the trouble of identifying them and their unsuitability, surely the next step is to make the information available and to ensure access to it for prospective tenants and not only local authorities, although I accept that it is possible to introduce some safeguards. Sharing the information would help to drive up standards and would benefit the majority of decent private landlords by helping them to maintain their properties. Those decent landlords need never appear on the database.
The provisions are of great importance to my constituents. I elicited no response from the Minister, but earlier I mentioned the problems we are having in east Durham in the village of Horden. Housing provider Accent recently withdrew from my constituency, and warnings were issued about the consequences at the time. Partially as a result of years of underinvestment, Accent began a process of leaving its properties empty as tenants left. We now have multiple properties, even entire streets—colliery rows such as you might be familiar with from your own area, Sir Alan—that are empty and boarded up, which itself generates huge problems. The worst fears of the community, which I raised in parliamentary questions and in a Westminster Hall debate, were of a fire sale and an influx of absentee private landlords. That is precisely what happened.
I am concerned that unless we take stronger measures and put something in the Bill, the problem that we have seen manifest in Horden in my constituency will spread to other villages, such as Blackhall, Easington Colliery and Dawdon, with similar numbers of former colliery housing. We have an opportunity to address that problem. My community put in its best efforts to establish a housing co-op—an initiative, which I support, advocated with great vigour and enthusiasm by the hon. Member for South Norfolk—but we have seen a lack of any meaningful activity, funding and support by the Homes and Communities Agency, although to be fair the Minister facilitated a meeting.
Subsequently, the properties were auctioned off on the open market and the worst fears of the community were realised. I was hoping that the Bill would offer some comfort and protection from rogue landlords to future tenants and to communities such as the one in Horden. Will the Minister go further and support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead? Even if not directly, it would allow the public access to the database, in effect naming and shaming bad landlords—in my case absentee ones—in a way that is similar to the practice for businesses that flout the minimum wage regulations.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I, too, strongly support the amendment that my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead and for Easington have spoken to. I want to ask the Minister some additional questions. I find it very curious that the Government have not sought to give our constituents access to the database so that they do not run the risk of taking a tenancy offered by a rogue landlord.
The Government have put forward a helpful measure. It is not the only measure needed to regulate the private rented sector, but at least it is something. Some effort will be made to create a database of rogue landlords, and that will be welcome. However, it is extraordinary that the only people with access to the database will be the local authority, because the local authority will not be the one taking on tenancies
Mr Thomas
Is the Government’s approach not indicative of the Conservative party’s nanny state tendency? Nanny knows best, so tenants should not have access to the information, but the housing authority should. It seems a classic example of the worst form of the nanny state in action.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I agree: it is a breakdown in the desire to provide people with the information they need to decide whether they are being offered a tenancy from a bona fide source. The only justification that Ministers have given is, “We cannot open this up for public scrutiny because it will breach our data protection laws,” but that is not good enough. I want to know how it would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 and why the Government have not thought of ways to get round that and give our constituents access to information that is necessary to them.
I will give another example from my constituency to point out the limitations of clause 30. Durham County Council might carry out an investigation and decide to put a landlord in West Rainton on to the database of rogue landlords, perhaps while working up a case for a banning order. Meanwhile, the said rogue landlord could cross the road from West Rainton into East Rainton, moving from the Durham County Council area to the Sunderland City Council area. Without giving tenants an opportunity to ask Sunderland whether the landlord was on the database, it might never check. It might not be aware that Durham County Council was about to put out a banning order.
In the meantime, my constituents would not be protected at all, despite the fact that the information would be available to the local authority, while my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) would not be aware of a lurking constituency problem with a rogue landlord either. Indeed, her constituents could not know there was a problem. That seems to be a major weakness of clause 30, which is why the amendment is so important.
Mr Thomas
Would not another benefit of the amendment be that Members of Parliament and their researchers and caseworkers would be able to access the information? I suspect that all members of the Committee—certainly Opposition Members—hold regular surgeries and have large numbers of people coming to them who are concerned about the private rented sector. If our staff could access information on the database, Members might be able to provide even better advice to constituents on whether to approach a housing authority to take action against a landlord or to have a direct conversation with a landlord about how a problem with a property might be sorted out.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. When the Minister responds, will he explain to the Committee how making this information available to Members of Parliament would be a breach of data protection, especially if we used that information very carefully and limited its use to advising potential tenants that they might be about to take on board a tenancy provided by a rogue landlord?
What the amendment is asking for—protection for our constituents and for possible tenants—seems to me a really reasonable thing. It would show the public that the Government were serious about addressing the issue of rogue landlords. I am sure that none of us would dream of accusing the Government of not being reasonable in trying to do something about the significant problem of rogue landlords, but this clause perhaps suggests that the public are not being given all the information they could have.
Without a better rationale than the one we have heard, Opposition Members will have to think carefully about whether we will agree to clause 30 standing part of the Bill. It is interesting that protecting tenants or future tenants is not on the long list in clause 31 of all the things the information is supposed to do. That is extraordinary. Why would that be left off the list of uses of information in the database? On that basis, we need to hear more from the Minister.
Mr Thomas
Were the Government not to accept the amendment, is there not a further potential problem, related to freedom of information legislation? Presumably, freedom of information legislation would cover submissions to the relevant official in the housing authority who was drawing up or was responsible for putting information into the database, so a dedicated and disciplined Member of Parliament could put in FOI requests and get access to the information anyway. Why not save us all the trouble and accept the amendment in the first place?
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes another excellent suggestion. It is interesting that the Government have not thought to exempt that information from the Freedom of Information Act—at least, there is nothing in the Bill that suggests they are thinking of ensuring that information cannot be released about the database through an FOI request. That could lead to an even worse situation than the one we have outlined, where some tenants or advocates working on behalf of tenants get access to the database because they have made freedom of information requests, while other tenants or future tenants find it difficult, if not impossible, to get such access. We seem to be dealing with a situation that is not only extraordinary, but totally unfair as well.
Mr Jackson
I am interested in probing the hon. Lady’s argument. Perhaps this is a supposition, but is she saying that if, for instance, housing associations were reclassified by the Office for National Statistics as public bodies, she would therefore support the extension of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to tenants vis-à-vis housing associations? Is that Labour party policy?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, as always. We were making a slightly different point, which was that the Government and Ministers do not seem to have made it very clear that the information on the database may not be available through a freedom of information request. Unless that is made absolutely clear, we run the risk of some tenants, future tenants, possible tenants or their advocates getting access to the database, whereas other people who do not go down the route of making a freedom of information request will not have access. To us, that seems to be rather a ridiculous and unfair situation.
We need to hear very clearly from Ministers why access to the database is being restricted to local authorities. What is it specifically in the Data Protection Act that would prevent Members of Parliament or other approved agencies—I am sure we could all come up with list of them—from having access to that information in the database? What are the reasons? Potential use of that information could be prescribed to a large extent by Ministers. During our consideration of the Bill, the Committee has heard a lot about how much information will be put into regulations. I am sure it would be possible for Ministers to come up with regulations that set out who could have access to the database and in what circumstances, what the information could be used for, how it could be passed on to third parties and what caveats would be attached to it. If the information were to be used only in prescribed circumstances, that would protect the people it concerned under data protection law.
Grahame M. Morris
Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Peterborough has launched a bit of a red herring, or perhaps a blue one? A straightforward question deserves a straightforward answer. Is there not a basic principle, supported by the Public Accounts Committee, that we should follow the public pound? When we are talking about housing benefit in particular, is it not right that information about rogue and criminal landlords should be available?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The point my hon. Friend made in that excellent intervention is that the information should be available as quickly as possible in order to give maximum protection to potential tenants. As it stands, the Opposition are not convinced that tenants are being given that maximum protection. Our argument is a reasonable one. I can see how Ministers might be concerned about the Data Protection Act, but it would be possible to address any concerns by prescribing who can access the information, in what circumstances, and what it can be used for, with some caveats. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the very specific points we have raised.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to have caught your eye, Sir Alan. I welcome the intervention by the hon. Member for Peterborough and hope we might hear a little more from him about his concerns about freedom of information and housing associations. In answer to his question, I must confess that I have not yet made my mind up, but I am tempted to say yes when I wake up in the morning and think about the activities of A2Dominion. That organisation is a housing association in my constituency that has been very slow to sort out the problems at Bannister House, where a number of its tenants and leaseholders have been suffering over the past eight years from a consistent pattern of leaks. I have written to the chief executive seeking clarity on the association’s intentions but have yet to receive a coherent answer or have the courtesy of a meeting with the relevant decision maker.
If the hon. Gentleman was proposing that, now that housing associations are part of Government for the purposes of ONS stats, freedom of information legislation should apply to them, I would be tempted by that argument. He will, I am sure, be grateful to me for tabling amendment 99, which we will come to later in our considerations. It might provide a useful opportunity to have that discussion and a chance for him to set out his views one way or t’other.
The crucial point of amendment 106 is that if, as I suspect, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have the capacity, through their experienced staff, to apply under FOI legislation to see which people are covered by the database—albeit it is intended to be used only for research—it would surely be better for the Minister to save housing authorities some time and simply accept the amendment. I could envisage a situation in a year’s time, when the Bill has gone through, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is approached one Friday in his surgery by a constituent who is worried about the quality of accommodation that he is seeking to access. My hon. Friend might be tempted to put in a freedom of information request to see whether the landlord of that accommodation had in any way come to the notice of the Greenwich housing authority.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a good speech. I hope the Minister will address this point, which has been made by my hon. Friends: barely a month ago the Government made great show of 113 employers. They were named and shamed—the names and addresses of their companies were listed—to highlight the enforcement action the Government were taking in that regard, and to drive behavioural change by frightening off other employers from making the same mistake. All were thoroughly investigated, as rogue landlords will be under the Bill, according to the Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are struggling, and my constituents would struggle, to understand why the Data Protection Act allowed those employers to be named and shamed, but will not allow my constituents to take a look at landlords they should avoid?
Mr Thomas
That was an extremely good intervention and a further powerful point that I hope the Minister will take into account.
I can imagine the hon. Member for Peterborough seeing constituents turn up at his surgery in 2020. The next Labour Government will be introducing new housing legislation. The hon. Member for South Norfolk will have been drafted in on the housing Bill Committee for the new Opposition and he may be tempted to make a speech about self-build and custom house building. I am always excited to hear him speak, but the hon. Member for Peterborough may not be and he may use the opportunity, if he has been approached by a constituent who is worried about their landlord, to put in a request under the freedom of information legislation to see whether that landlord had in some way come to the notice of the housing authority and was therefore included in the database.
Mr Bacon
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to intervene. Under my revolutionary approach, there would not be any of this faffing around the edges. If landlords were misbehaving, the tenants would have the power to take their destiny into their own hands, remove the property from the bad landlord and form a housing co-operative. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that buildforlife.org.uk—the start of the revolution—was launched this afternoon.
Mr Thomas
I am very happy to have been the vehicle for the revelation that the hon. Gentleman has just provided. His intervention reminds me that I have not yet sent to him the membership form for the Co-op party. Perhaps I should also send him a Labour party membership form, although I do not want to fall out of order.
We were discussing whether the hon. Member for Peterborough, during one of the speeches by the hon. Member for South Norfolk, might put in a freedom of information request, and I was about to appeal to the Minister to prevent the hon. Member for Peterborough from being tempted to do so. Allow us to see that information as Members of Parliament. Allow us to help our constituents. I think of the caseworkers in my office. They are extremely experienced and effective. If they are concerned that a rogue landlord is operating in my constituency and there might be a way of teasing out confirmation of that fact through an FOI request to the local planning authority, they would be at me straightaway to suggest that I put that FOI request in. I suspect that that would be the case for all Opposition Members and even, I suspect, for one or two Government Members. I therefore say to the Minister: let us try to avoid that situation by accepting the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Does he agree that an extraordinary thing is being asked of local authorities? They would have information on their database about a rogue landlord—someone who might inflict quite a lot of damage on a tenant—yet they would be prevented by the clause from passing that information to a potential tenant, even if the potential tenant asked specific questions about the landlord. Surely that cannot be right.
Mr Thomas
As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington said, surely this is, perhaps inadvertently, an opportunity to continue to name and shame rogue landlords who are guilty of poor practice. For prospective tenants who are looking for a new home to move into, looking at a register and being able to judge whether the person who owns the place that they are about to move into is a rogue landlord is a basic defence. The hon. Member for Peterborough, I believe, wanted to hear more about the rogue landlord Andreas Stavrou Antoniades. As I said, he illegally converted a house near Finsbury Park—
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
That is the third time the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Gentleman is enthusiastically welcoming me drawing the Committee’s attention in this context to why it would be relevant to the amendment. I understand that Finsbury Park is near Islington. Why should prospective tenants in Islington not be able to see whether a property they might be moving into is owned by Mr Antoniades? A further example of a rogue landlord is Leonardo Ippolito in Ayr, western Scotland, who was accused by his local council and successfully prosecuted for operating houses of horror, choosing to put profit above everything else. South Ayrshire Council banned him from operating as a landlord.
The next name will be of interest to the Minister of State. At Great Yarmouth magistrates court, Stanley John Rodgers was convicted of manslaughter and jailed for five years after two of his tenants, both teenagers, died from carbon monoxide poisoning. He was able to continue operating as a landlord, but if the Government accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, prospective tenants will be able to see whether the property they are moving into might be owned by this rogue landlord and make a judgment on whether to move in.
Zuo Jun He made more than £26,000 a year by squeezing 12 tenants into a flat above a Chinese restaurant in Watford. He was fined £30,000 plus almost £6,000 in costs after pleading guilty to overcrowding. Again, why should his name not be put on the database and, crucially and more importantly in the context of the amendment, why should prospective tenants in Watford not have the opportunity to see this gentleman’s name on the database and decide whether to take the risk of moving in?
I am sure the hon. Member for Peterborough will be delighted that I intend to mention Andrew Panayi for a second time. He is a controversial landlord who lets out 180 properties on the Caledonia Road near King’s Cross, which is definitely in the Islington area. He was ordered to pay £70,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Again, why should prospective tenants not be able to look at the database that is being established under clauses 30 and 31 and see, as a result of my hon. Friend’s amendment, whether they are likely to be moving into a property owned by someone judged to be a rogue landlord?
My hon. Friend’s amendment is extremely sensible and I urge the Government to accept it. If Government Members have not got the point, perhaps I should mention one more rogue landlord, or perhaps two. Katia Goremsandu was described as the UK’s worst landlord when it emerged in July that she had been convicted seven times for housing offences. Again, why should prospective tenants not have access to the information on the database to see whether they would be at risk of moving into one of her properties?
Last week, according to Reading Borough Council, Ishaq Hussein rented out a house that had no working fire alarm, no firefighting equipment or emergency lighting and inadequate fire escapes, placing tenants at risk of serious injury or death. Why should the information it holds on the database not be available to prospective tenants in Reading so that they can see whether there might be a risk of them moving into a property owned by Mr Ishak Hussein? My hon. Friend has tabled a sensible amendment and I urge the Minister to accept it.
Mr Jones
For more than three hours and in debating more than 20 clauses, the Committee has worked in a spirit of consensus, recognising that the Bill will make a significant difference to the 3.2% of people renting out property to tenants in the private rented sector whom we know as rogue landlords. Members on both sides have acknowledged the serious approach the Government have taken in the provisions. It is slightly disappointing that, in the amendment, Opposition Members seem to have cited the most extreme cases that they can find on this very important issue as reasons that the amendment should stand. As I said earlier, in the most extreme circumstances, the person or persons renting out property and being the worst type of rogue landlords will be subject to lifetime banning orders. The instances that Opposition Members mention will not come to pass because many of those people will be banned for life.
In terms of data protection, which I will come to in more depth in a moment, Opposition Members have suggested that the register of rogue landlords should be made available to Members of this House. As all Members know, we are subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998—passed into law by the Labour party—and on that basis we are not allowed to pass the personal details of our constituents to a local authority without their consent. I find it difficult to understand where they are coming from on that point. Perhaps we need to consider further the point about freedom of information made by the hon. Member for Harrow West. There are exemptions for releasing personal information in the freedom of information regime.
Mr Jones
I will make some progress first. The amendment would allow tenants and prospective tenants to access the database of rogue landlords and agents via their local authority. While this access is mediated by the local authority there are data protection issues which would have to be carefully considered before allowing such access. The database is not a list of banned landlords and agents, instead it is an enforcement tool for local authorities, enabling them to share information across boundaries efficiently and target enforcement activity. The offences that could lead to inclusion on the database vary considerably in their seriousness and in some cases may be spent before the minimum two-year period on the database has ended.
Inclusion on the database should mean that local authorities keep a close eye on a landlord’s activities, but it is not intended as a ban, and opening access to the database in that way might prevent a landlord included on the database from operating their landlord business. That would be a ban in practical terms, but without proper scrutiny provided by the tribunal, which will consider all the facts and take a decision on whether to issue a banning order. It is right that banned landlords are unable to operate a landlord business, but it is not right that anyone included on the database should be prevented from operating their business. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree to withdraw her amendment.
The Chair
Order. The matter is debated. Mr Pennycook, you can indicate that you want to speak by standing.
Mr Thomas
On a point of order, Sir Alan. I was seeking to intervene on the Minister, and it is a courtesy for the Minister to give way to Opposition Members. I hope that through the usual channels, Sir Alan, you might gently remind the Minister of his responsibilities in that respect.
The Chair
As a Minister of long standing, albeit in the Department for International Development and others, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is a matter for the Minister himself, not the Chair. We will move on.
Teresa Pearce
Thank you, Sir Alan. The Minister misunderstands what the amendment is meant to do. We are trying to establish a way for tenants and prospective tenants—someone who is about to enter into a legal lease—to check with the local authority whether the person offering the lease is a fit and proper person. Someone could call up their local housing authority and say, “This person has offered me a lease. Are they fit and proper, or are they a banned landlord?” If the answer is no, and the landlord is not on the list, the person could proceed, or remain silent if the landlord is on the list. The only other way of giving individual tenants such protection would be to give some sort of kitemark to all landlords except those who are not fit and proper, which would be onerous.
The amendment is quite simple, but I thought long and hard before tabling it. Many people contacted me to say they wanted a public database, which I think would be a step too far, because there could be misunderstandings if there are people with similar names. That would not be right.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that the Minister did not want to take an intervention, but it is important the Committee gets some clarity on this. What is different in data protection terms about the rogue employers that are named, shamed and listed by the Government? Why can the deviation or derogation from the Data Protection Act in that respect not apply in this respect, to empower tenants?
Teresa Pearce
I completely agree. We should be protecting people from engaging in a legal lease with someone who the local authority knows should not be offering that because they have been banned. We would therefore like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Before we proceed to the stand part debate, Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods would like to raise a point of order.
Dr Blackman-Woods
On a point of order, Sir Alan. This is on the programme motion. When we had the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, a draft timetable was presented to us in advance of that meeting. It was firmly agreed at that Committee that it was simply advisory and that the Government were not signalling an intention to put knives into the process, and yet we are now being presented with—[Interruption.] Sorry, may I continue with my point of order? We are now being presented with a timetable that the Government are insisting that we stick to, regardless of whether that brings about good scrutiny of this legislation or not. I wish to seek clarification from you, Sir Alan, as to what status that document has, because we were led to believe that we were doing one thing, and if the Government are seeking to put knives into the process, they have to be very clear that that is what they are doing.
The Chair
That is not really a matter for the Chair. I can tell the hon. Lady that such a programme agreement, which is entered into by all parties subject to the membership of the Committee, is advisory, because ultimately, how the Committee operates is a matter for the Committee. However, when there is conflict with the rules of laying motions and amendments related to other matters that need to be heard, it gives you the opportunity to make a direct appeal elsewhere, beyond this Committee, via the normal channels, which you are aware of, to the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is not actually a matter for the Chair. The Chairman of Ways and Means may consider whether it is a valid request, whether extra time should be found, and whether the time should be amended accordingly.
Can we move on?
Brandon Lewis
Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. It is important to respond to the hon. Lady’s point of order, because it does not give a clear picture. We need to be very clear about this: we are very happy, and I am very keen, to see proper debate and scrutiny of the Bill, which is why we are happy to take the time to go through this properly. There are no knives, and, as far as I understand it, we even gave flexibility and moved on from the original agreement, as we did on Thursday—when we spent a whole session of an hour and a half discussing one line with no votes, if I remember it correctly—and I even suggested to the hon. Lady then that we would be willing to accept late amendments in order to facilitate helping the Opposition. So I think the hon. Lady is being very disingenuous, to be blunt, in making that point. It is important that we keep a good pace to make sure that we are able to stick, with flexibility, to what was agreed some time ago, bearing in mind that what was agreed was that we would work towards getting to clause 48. We are, indeed, still just on clause 30.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. The Minister has just emphasised my need to make a point of order. That timetable was not discussed at the Programming Sub-Committee, and nor was it agreed to. In fact, we said the opposite: we asked for it to be very clear that we were not agreeing to the timetable set out by the Government Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington asked for clarification of its status, and we were told that it is advisory. We also made it very clear that we did not agree to it and we did not consider it a formal part of the business of the Programming Sub-Committee. The Government responded by saying that they were not putting down knives, which we now seem to have before us. The reason for my point of order has been clarified.
The Chair
May I confirm for clarity that it is not for the Chair but the Chairman of Ways and Means or the usual channels to determine these matters? However, if it interferes with the due process of tabling amendments, which may not be tabled in adequate time to qualify—I appreciate that the Minister made some helpful suggestions—I have a helpful suggestion. I know that, a little later in the programme, there are two or three clauses that the Government want to change. Could we get to that point and then possibly have a review? It was proposed to me in the previous break that there are difficulties with the Opposition’s seeking decisions today that might determine that amendments may need to be tabled for Thursday and beyond for discussion the following Tuesday. It might be found to be reasonable to give them time to do that, although I am not the one who makes such a decision. I do not want people outside this Committee to make decisions about it one way or the other. I suggest that we move on to the changes that the Government want to progress with, and thereafter have a review to see whether we can move forward on this issue. Does that make sense? We have to think about it while we debate clause stand part.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Use of information in database
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to clause 31. Again, I want to probe the Minister’s intentions, rather than suggest that the clause should be deleted. Following the decision on clause 30, the database applies only to housing authorities in England. I want to ask two questions. First, if housing authorities in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland have suspicions that rogue landlords operating in their area are active in a part of England, will they be able to provide or seek information under clause 31 to help them make a judgment about the use or otherwise of their own legislation to crack down on rogue landlords in those other nations?
My second question relates to the information on the database and whether it might be used by bodies other than housing authorities. This is almost the reverse of the point I was making earlier about banks and HMRC. If a rogue landlord is operating, it is possible that their behaviour will have come to the attention of HMRC, which might want to gather information for a prosecution. Under clause 31, would any information from particular housing authorities that is on the database be available for use by HMRC and other public authorities?
Similarly, would the information be available to private sector bodies that fulfil a purpose of benefit to the community? Perhaps oddly, I mention the example of banks: would rogue banks that want to prosecute an individual, or that are worried that a rogue landlord is perpetuating a fraud against them, be able to access information in the database? I come back to a point I made earlier about freedom of information: would banks or other private sector bodies be able to use freedom of information requests to access data on the database? Under certain circumstances, I would instinctively be comfortable with other public bodies being able to access such information, particularly if they were trying to ensure that proper levels of tax were paid. In some cases, I might be comfortable with banks being able to access some of the information in certain circumstances, but in other cases I would not.
It would be helpful if the Minister could spend a little time dwelling on those two issues. Will housing authorities in the other nations of the United Kingdom be able to access information in the database in any way? There is probably merit in trying to ensure that information about our rogue landlords, who presumably operate across borders in the UK, could be shared with housing authorities in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Will other public bodies and certain private sector bodies be able to access the information in the database? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr Jones
Clause 31 sets out the purposes for which the information in the database can be used. It provides that the Secretary of State may use it only for statistical and research purposes. For example, that might include using the information to help to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation and to develop Government policy for the private rented sector.
Local housing authorities may use the information only for specified purposes, including for carrying out their functions under the Housing Act 2004—for example, to identify whether a property should be licensed under that Act. The information can also be used to promote compliance with the law by persons entered on the database—for example, by providing advice or training on the law and/or best practice. It may also be used to investigate whether there is any contravention of the law by a person on the database. That could include, for example, an investigation into whether a person has breached a banning order or carried out an unlawful eviction. Such information may also be used for the purpose of taking proceedings against persons on the database for banning order offences or other contraventions of housing or landlord and tenant law. The information may also be used by local authorities for statistical or research purposes.
In response to the hon. Member for Harrow West, housing, as he knows, is a devolved issue in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but I understand where he is coming from. It is something that we could consider, but I heavily caveat that on the basis that this part of the Bill relates to England only. I will certainly take that point away with me from today’s debate.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister. I simply give him the example of a rogue landlord operating in Gloucester, for example. Newport is not far away, so why should the landlord not operate there, too? I recognise, however, that this part of the Bill covers England only and that the EVEL provisions in our Standing Orders complicate things. I am grateful to the Minister for his response and strongly encourage him to mull over whether there is some way of providing the other nations with access to the database held by English housing authorities.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I refer him back to my comments before his intervention and will carefully consider the issue.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned examples relating to tax compliance. HMRC has its own powers to investigate when it thinks that a person has not complied with tax law, so I do not deem it necessary to take up his suggestion.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Introduction and key definitions
Amendment made: 34, in clause 32, page 15, line 14, at end insert—
‘7 | This Act | section (Offence of breach of banning order) | breach of banning order’ |
.—(Brandon Lewis.)
In the Bill as introduced a rent repayment order is available where a person commits an offence to which Chapter 4 of Part 2 applies or breaches a banning order. NC3 makes breach of a banning order a criminal offence so it is now possible to treat it in the same way as other offences to which Chapter 4 applies. That is the purpose of this amendment and various other amendments to Chapter 4.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 32 and chapter 4 of part 2 of the Bill relate to rent repayment orders and the first-tier tribunal’s power to make such an order in certain cases. The new provisions apply in England only. A rent repayment order requires a landlord to repay money paid as rent. It is currently available in situations in which a landlord has failed to obtain a licence for housing that ought to be licensed under the Housing Act 2004. The order is obtained by application to the first-tier tribunal, which has the power to make a rent repayment order for an amount equivalent to any rent received during the period of the offence up to a maximum of 12 months’ rent.
The clause provides that a rent repayment order may be made if a landlord commits an offence to which this chapter applies, which includes the following offences: the control and management of a house in multiple occupation that is subject to licensing but is unlicensed, and the control and management of a house that is subject to selective licensing, but is unlicensed. That consolidates the existing provision under the 2004 Act and that a rent repayment order may be made in respect of offences of using violence to obtain entry to a dwelling under the Criminal Law Act 1977, illegal eviction or harassment of occupiers of a dwelling under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, failure to comply with an improvement notice or a prohibition order issued for a dwelling under the 2004 Act, or breach of the new banning order introduced in chapter 2 of this part of the Bill.
Mr Thomas
It is delightful to have the Minister back. I hope he is feeling less grumpy than he was this morning and that he will adopt the same, more measured tone of the Under-Secretary when good and sensible points are made by Opposition Members and agree to go away and reflect on them with a view to coming back on Report with sensible amendments.
Clause 32 reads well, but I rise to make one particular point. Assuming that a housing authority goes to the first-tier tribunal to take action against a rogue landlord, a tenant may well want a rent repayment order to be issued as part of the package of action taken against that landlord. Does the Minister envisage that legal aid will be available to tenants so that they can access quality legal advice and make robust representations at the first-tier tribunal rather than rely on the good will or not of the housing authority bringing the action?
The clause could be helpful for the tenants of the 10,500 rogue landlords, but we need to ensure that tenants are properly represented and have the means to benefit from it. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether any discussions have taken place with the Ministry of Justice about whether tenants in such a position who want a rent repayment order to be issued might be able to secure legal aid for quality representation at the first-tier tribunal. I look forward to his response.
Brandon Lewis
We published a document in August seeking comments on a range of issues in relation to tackling rogue landlords and these clauses came out of the responses to that. Of those who responded, 88% said that we should introduce rent repayment orders when a landlord has failed to comply with the statutory notice and 85% said that we should introduce rent repayment orders for situations in which a tenant has been illegally evicted. This measure is therefore very much driven by the people who responded, including tenants,
I take on board the points that the hon. Gentleman made, though I ignored some of his remarks that do his own good humour no justice. I will have a look at those points and come back to him in the next few days.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Application for rent repayment order
Amendments made: 35, in clause 33, page 15, leave out line 24.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 34.
Amendment 36, in clause 33, page 15, line 27, leave out first “breach or”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 34.
Amendment 37, in clause 33, page 15, line 27, leave out second “breach or”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 34.
Amendment 38, in clause 33, page 15, line 29, leave out “the breach occurred or”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 34.
Amendment 39, in clause 33, page 15, line 32, leave out “breach or”.—(Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 34.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
The clause enables a tenant or local housing authority to apply for a rent repayment order against a landlord who has committed an offence listed in clause 32.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Notice of intended proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
The clause specifies that, before a local housing authority applies for a rent repayment order, it must give the landlord notice of intended proceedings. That notice must inform the landlord that the local housing authority proposes to apply for a rent repayment order and explain why. It must also state the amount it seeks to recover and invite the landlord to make representations, giving them not less than 28 days’ notice.
The local housing authority must consider any representations received before deciding whether to proceed with the application. The local housing authority must wait until after the notice period has expired before applying for a rent repayment order. The notice of intended proceedings must be given within 12 months beginning on the day that the landlord breached the banning order.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Order following breach of banning order
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 35 should not stand part of the Bill.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 35 accordingly disagreed to.
Clause 36
Amount of order under section 35
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 36 should not stand part of the Bill because, as with clause 35, the breach of a banning order is now a criminal offence, so the clause is no longer required.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 36 accordingly disagreed to.
Clause 37
Order following offence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 37 enables a rent repayment order to be made if the first-tier tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a landlord has committed an offence and an application has been made under clause 33. The offences that are covered by this clause are where a landlord has not complied with an improvement notice, a prohibition notice or the licensing requirement as set out in the Housing Act 2004; and where a landlord has been found guilty of violent entry into a property or where they have unlawfully evicted a tenant. The amount of rent to be repaid will be determined in accordance with clause 38 if a tenant makes the application, with clause 39 if the application is made by the local housing authority, or with clause 40 if the landlord has been convicted.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Amount of order under section 37: tenants
Amendment made: 42, in clause 38, page 17, line 23, leave out “or 6” and insert “, 6 or 7”—(Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 34.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 38 specifies the amount of rent to be repaid following a decision by the first-tier tribunal to make a rent repayment order in favour of the tenant. Where the grounds for the order are that a landlord has effected a violent entry to a property or has illegally evicted or harassed the tenant, the amount must relate to rent paid by the tenant in respect of the period of 12 months ending with the date of the offence. Where a landlord has not complied with an improvement notice, a prohibition notice or licensing requirements, or where they have breached a banning order, the amount must relate to a period not exceeding 12 months during which the landlord was committing the offence.
The amount of rent that the landlord may be required to repay must not exceed the rent paid in respect of that period, less any relevant award of universal credit or housing benefit paid in respect of rent under the tenancy during that period. In determining the amount to be repaid, the tribunal must, in particular, take into account the conduct of the landlord—and, indeed, of the tenant—the financial circumstances of the landlord and whether they have, at any time, been convicted of an offence to which this chapter applies.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Amount of order under section 37: local housing authorities
Amendment made: 43, in clause 39, page 18, line 8, leave out “or 6” and insert “, 6 or 7”—(Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 34.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 39 specifies the amount of rent to be repaid following a decision of the first-tier tribunal to make a rent repayment order in favour of a local housing authority. The grounds I outlined in clause 38 apply all the way through.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Amount of order following conviction
Amendment made: 44, in clause 40, page 18, line 30, leave out “or 4” and insert “, 4 or 7” —(Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 34.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
The clause specifies that the amount to be repaid to a tenant or local housing authority is to be the maximum that the first-tier tribunal has power to order in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are, first, that the order is made against a landlord who has been convicted by a court of an offence to which the chapter applies, or who has received a civil penalty in respect of the offence, and that the period of appeal against the penalty has expired or any appeal has been finally determined or withdrawn.
Secondly, the maximum will be payable when the order is made in favour of a local housing authority in respect of any offences to which the chapter applies. Where the order is made in favour of a tenant, however, the maximum will be obligatory only in respect of the new grounds of commission of an offence of violent entry, or of unlawful eviction or harassment, failure to comply with an improvement notice or breach of a banning order, but not in respect of a licensing offence. When the first-tier tribunal considers repayment of the full amount unreasonable because of exceptional circumstances it might not be required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Enforcement of rent repayment orders
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move amendment 111, in clause 41, page 19, line 10, at end insert—
“, and about what extra charges the local housing authority may levy to fund investigation, enforcement, and other matters related to the operation of rent repayment orders.”
This amendment would ensure that local housing authorities are able to levy a landlord who is ordered to pay a rent repayment order, in order to fund their related activities.
The amendment is probing, so we only want some clarity from the Minister. It would enable a levy by local housing authorities to fund investigation, enforcement and other matters relating to the operation of rent repayment orders. The Bill allows the orders to be covered by the local housing authority in cases of universal credit or housing benefit, or by tenants. We welcome the provision, which seeks to ensure that tenants are not at a loss financially after their landlord commits a housing offence or if they let from a landlord in breach of a banning order. Local housing authorities, however, might have no incentive to investigate allegations.
Clauses 42 and 43 mandate authorities to consider applying for a rent repayment order and to assist tenants in applying for one, but under clause 41 the powers rest with the Secretary of State to make provision by regulation for how local housing authorities are to deal with amounts recovered under rent repayment orders. We do not know what the secondary legislation will be, so the amendment would ensure that the local housing authorities are able to levy additional moneys from a landlord who is ordered to pay a rent repayment order to fund their investigations and enforcement actions.
If rent repayment orders are to be successful operationally, local authorities need to be able to fund their work. The amendment seeks to introduce a measure that would allow them to do so. Will the Minister outline his view of how local housing authorities should use the amounts recovered and whether they are to receive a proportion of receipts to compensate them for their investigatory work? Local authorities will be expected to do a great deal, whether assisting a tenant or acting on their own behalf. There will be pressures on council staff time and resources and, should the matter go to the first-tier tribunal, there will undoubtedly be more legal costs or costs for legal advice.
Grahame M. Morris
My hon. Friend is making an important point and I am interested to hear the Minister’s response. I am thinking, once again, about some of the acute problems we have in east Durham with absentee landlords. Many of them have bought up large blocks of properties and there is difficulty in identifying who actually owns them. Given the pressures that local authorities are under, it would be useful if they were in a position to recover some of the costs.
Teresa Pearce
That is what we are probing, and I hope to hear the Minister’s view on that. Without such compensation, local authorities could be unmotivated to act. When local government finance is squeezed, it is incredibly important for local authorities to be able to undertake fully any additional work that we expect of them. We must ensure that they may take on their responsibilities.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government do not accept the amendment it will be yet another example of their determination to ensure that their regulatory framework for rogue landlords lacks teeth? We have just heard the Government refuse to allow tenants the opportunity to use the database of rogue landlords to inform their consumer choices about whether to rent a property. By refusing to allow local authorities the ability to levy charges to cover the additional burdens associated with rent repayment orders, this will inevitably hamper their ability to undertake effective investigation and enforcement. The Government are introducing regulations that will effectively have no teeth in practice.
Teresa Pearce
I completely agree. Some local authorities will be able to do this, but some local authorities simply will not be able to do it because they do not have the funds. We have moved this probing amendment to ask the Minister whether that has been considered and how the Government intend to make the measure work if a local authority does not have the resources to carry out the work set out in the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
I am slightly surprised by some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. Bear in mind that, as I think those on both sides of the Committee have agreed—it has certainly been agreed outside—there will be a fairly stringent set of measures to do what we can to crack down on rogue landlords. The hon. Member for Harrow West mentioned a situation in my constituency that I think I mentioned on Second Reading, and those are exactly the sorts of landlords we need to drive out of the system. I absolutely support anything we can do to do that. It is disappointing that Labour did not do those things in 13 years and it has taken a full Conservative Government to get to grips with the issue.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood might also want to look back at the comments made by the Under-Secretary of State on what we will consider in order to ensure that the list is properly used and well used, allowing for the Data Protection Act issues and the fact that sometimes these are organisations that have a legitimate right to run their business. Criminal prosecutions and banning orders are still part of the process; I think the hon. Lady has forgotten some of what was debated earlier.
In response to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, other measures proposed in the Bill will allow local authorities to retain civil penalties and to receive moneys from rent repayment orders where the rent has been paid from housing benefit or universal credit. Local authorities can also recover their costs from prosecutions; we have to get the balance right so that we do not make the system disproportionate by imposing a levy on top of those other financial penalties that can be levied and held by a local authority. With that explanation, and although I have great sympathy for her ethos, I hope she will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Teresa Pearce
My concern is that different local authorities operate in very different ways. Some are resourced and some are not, and I would not want tenants in one local authority not to have the same protection as tenants in another local authority, but I accept what the Minister says. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 41 provides that an amount payable under a rent repayment order is recoverable as a debt. It further provides that such an amount payable to a local housing authority does not, when recovered by the authority, constitute an amount of housing benefit or universal credit recovered by the authority. The clause also provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations on how local authorities are to deal with the amounts so recovered, which consolidates existing provision under the Housing Act 2004 under which regulations have been made providing that recovered amounts are to be applied for purposes under the Act and that any amount remaining is to be paid to the Consolidated Fund.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 42 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Meaning of “letting agent” and related expressions
Amendments made: 45, in clause 47, page 21, line 1, leave out subsection (5)
See Member’s explanatory statement for NC8.
Amendment 46, in clause 47, page 21, leave out lines 11 and 12—(Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for NC8.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
Briefly, clause 47 provides a definition of a letting agent and what letting agency work includes for the purpose of part 2 of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
General interpretation of Part
Amendments made: 47, in clause 48, page 21, line 21, leave out “47” and insert
“(Meaning of “property manager” and related expressions)”
See Member’s explanatory statement for NC8.
Amendment 48, in clause 48, page 21, line 36, at end insert—
““property agent” means a letting agent or property manager;
“property manager” has the meaning given by section (Meaning of “property manager” and related expressions);”
See Member’s explanatory statement for NC8.
Amendment 49, in clause 48, page 21, leave out line 37—(Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement to NC8.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Julian Smith.)
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 12 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
World Prematurity Day
(8 years, 12 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
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Prematurity Day.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This subject does not get enough attention in this place, or indeed in the media. In the previous Parliament—in a Westminster Hall debate and elsewhere—I raised the subject of stillbirth, as I have a very good friend who suffered possibly one of the worst stillbirth events that I have ever heard of. I asked lots of questions in this place on that subject, including at Prime Minister’s questions, because I truly believe that we need to raise awareness of these matters. I worked very closely with Sands and with a charity called Bliss, whose strapline is,
“for babies born too soon, too small, too sick”.
Those organisations really care passionately about neonatal issues.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. I have received a number of emails about the debate, including from a constituent, Samantha Evans, whose son Dylan was born in the 27th week of pregnancy. Across the emails I have had, there is a wonderful sense of how great the care provided by the NHS to premature babies is. I absolutely praise that, but suggest that perhaps in policy development in future, it might be useful to look at what support can be provided to the parents of premature babies.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and I will come on to that later. I, too, have had a lot of contact from my constituents on this issue. In fact, at my very first surgery—or advice centre—as a Member of Parliament back in 2010, a lady called Catherine Allcott came in, and it is through her that I got involved with the charity Bliss. I asked whether she would mind if I read out a couple of paragraphs about what happened to her and why this issue is so important to so many parents such as her and her husband, Nigel. She very kindly agreed, so to set the scene for Members, I will read out Catherine and Nigel’s story.
Their twins, Luke and Grace, were born in the early hours of the morning of 4 May 2006, at 26 weeks’ gestation. The twins’ premature birth caused serious health problems, including brain bleeds, suspected meningitis, necrotising enterocolitis and heart problems. Although Grace is now a happy, healthy child, sadly, Luke died nearly four months after being born. Catherine tells me:
“One of the things we found hardest to deal with at that time was the fact that there was often only one nurse in the NICU”—
the neonatal intensive care unit—
“usually to three or four babies.”
She was on the unit so much because of the issues she was experiencing and because she felt so uneasy about that situation, and that is why she has been involved ever since.
Catherine says:
“When I was there sometimes I would have to help the nurse on duty by running into the next room to fetch help. I often wondered what happened when I wasn’t there. When the nurses would tell me not to spend so much time on the unit, what was I to do? Tell them I didn’t trust them with so many babies to look after?”
She goes on to say:
“As a committed campaigner for high quality neonatal care I am saddened to think that in ten years very little has changed in terms of staffing units safely and effectively. How many babies have died or now endure life changing illnesses because there simply weren’t enough nurses to care for them appropriately, and what cost is that to the NHS?”
Catherine’s story is really significant. She took me on to the Gosset ward—the neonatal ward—in Northampton general hospital. I was told by a junior doctor who works there that it has all completely changed; it has been refitted and is a much nicer space. There is no doubting the passion and the care that the staff on the ward give, but equally, there is no doubting the pressure that they are under and the fact that we can help to improve the conditions for them.
World Prematurity Day takes place on 17 November every year—we have just missed it, but this was the closest time to World Prematurity Day that I could get for the debate. The day is aimed at raising awareness of the issues facing premature babies. It is co-ordinated by a global coalition of charities and groups, including Bliss, each year.
The global statistics are quite astonishing: 15 million babies are born prematurely worldwide each year—that is 29 babies every minute, and one in 10 of all babies born—and in the UK, that equates to nearly 60,000 babies born prematurely each year. Bliss estimates that 113 babies who need specialist care to help them survive and thrive are born every year to parents living in my constituency. About 61 of those babies are born prematurely, at under 37 weeks’ gestation. Those born at under 32 weeks’ gestation are considered very pre-term. Those babies are born before they are fully developed and often spend the longest time in neonatal care.
Obviously, most premature births have no clear cause, whereas others are induced due to medical necessity. There is evidence that risk factors for premature birth include smoking, drinking alcohol, substance abuse, low or high maternal age, infection, high blood pressure and multiple births. There is lots of research—although we could always do more on this subject—showing that socio-economic factors also have an impact.
I want to underline the fact that prematurity is a global issue, which is why we have World Prematurity Day. It is the world’s biggest cause of death for young children. Of the 15 million babies that are born prematurely worldwide each year, more than 1 million do not survive. We are fortunate in the UK to have the resources to care for all babies born prematurely, but there is a long way to go before babies and their parents are given the best possible chance.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on his unstinting work for the families of those who are facing the challenges of a premature birth. Often, one of the most acute problems facing families in that situation is meeting the costs of constant hospital visits. Will he join me in calling on all hospital trusts across the country to follow the Government’s guidelines on hospital parking charges, which would see concessions and even free parking for families of babies who often stay in hospital for months on end?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I concur with my hon. Friend on that matter. I have heard many a story about that. I have also visited the John Radcliffe hospital to see its neonatal unit and talked to parents. In Northampton general hospital’s case, there is a way for someone to get their parking charge back, although actually, if they are the parent of a premature child who is not doing very well, the last thing they think about is where they are going to park and how they are going to pay for the ticket. The grandparent of a baby born prematurely who is not very well does not think about the parking charge when they go in, but it is one of their worries when they leave. We need to do better on that issue and spread some of the best practice that exists in the NHS when it comes to parking charges. Those charges seem like a minor element in the scheme of things, but they are such a big deal to parents, grandparents, friends and family—the support mechanism that builds around a family when a baby is born prematurely and especially when a baby is born unwell. My hon. Friend is completely correct to raise that issue.
As I said, we have a long way to go before all babies born too soon have the best possible chance of survival and of living a good-quality life. The UK mortality rate for babies is quite high for a western European country. I have previously raised in this place an article in The Lancet, going back probably five years now, saying that we ranked 33rd of the 35 top western countries in stillbirth mortality rates. We were in a very poor place, and I struggle with the massive regional variation across our country. I would like to think that we have best practice that spreads across the NHS, but there will always be somewhere that has a number of staff sick and where there is pressure on a unit. However, there should not be a massive regional variation. The Lancet article said that stillbirth was a third more likely in the east midlands than in the south-west, so there are significant issues to deal with. Surely that rate should be equal across the piece.
If the UK could match the mortality rates achieved in Sweden and Norway, for example, the lives of at least 1,000 babies could be saved every year. One thousand babies—that is such a significant statistic. I have met parents of stillborn children and know what they have gone through. Some 1,000 babies each year could be saved with best staffing and better equipment, although the issue is not so much about resources. It is about spreading throughout the whole NHS the best practice that I have seen in various hospitals up and down the country. Concerns about variation in care were highlighted in this year’s Bliss baby report, which found that two thirds of neonatal units do not have enough nurses and two thirds do not have enough medical staff to meet Government standards for safe, high-quality care.
We must talk about this significant issue and raise awareness of it. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee for five years and raised it there when we had the chief maternity officer in front of us, because we should talk about such issues whenever we get the opportunity. I know that those working in the NHS get it—I have spoken to all sorts of people from the top to the bottom of the NHS, and they obviously all care passionately for the parents and want the best outcome for their babies—but we have a long way to go to improve the care available to mothers, fathers and their babies. We need to raise the matter at every opportunity, and when I did so in the Public Accounts Committee the chief maternity officer took me to one side afterwards and said, “We are really working hard on this. This is an issue that we know we can do better on. The Government have announced a strategy to reduce infant mortality by, I believe, 50% by 2030. That is obviously welcome and recognises that we could and should be doing better.
I want to raise a few points about the 2015 baby report by Bliss, which has done so much work in this area. I know that plenty of other charities do fantastic work, but Bliss is one of the biggest, and I have worked closely with it through my constituents, the Allcotts. I very much respect its work. The report, entitled “Hanging in the balance”, found that funding shortfalls, national skills shortages and problems with training and recruitment are leaving many neonatal units without the staff they need to meet Government and NHS standards for safe, high-quality care. It states that 64% of neonatal units do not have enough nurses to meet national standards of safe staffing levels; two thirds do not have enough specialist nurses; two thirds do not have the medical staff they need to meet national standards; and 41% have no access to a trained mental health worker—one of my hon. Friends will raise that point, so I will not go into it in detail—leaving parents and staff without the vital support they need to help them cope.
I emphasise that it is not only parents who need help. When I went to the John Radcliffe hospital, I unfortunately went on a morning when three babies had died the night before. None could have been helped, but although the staff are professional people who know exactly what they are doing and the situation they are working in—they have a huge passion for their role, deliver a huge amount of care and become attached to families in a big way—it was palpable that the unit was feeling down that morning. In fact, I felt that I was getting in the way, so I left as soon as I could. It is not just parents who need trained mental health workers available to them; the staff also need them to help them cope in such situations.
There are insufficient funding accounts for three quarters of nursing shortfalls in neonatal units, and 72% of units struggle with at least one aspect of nurse training and development. From all the time I have been involved with the matter, especially when seen through the glasses that I have put on as Daventry’s MP and from standing beside Catherine Allcott on Gosset ward at Northampton general hospital, I know that attracting people to go into this area of nursing is quite a job. Those who go into it find it remarkably rewarding, but it is also a remarkably tough role. That is one reason why vacancies in this field of nursing specialism have historically been high, and we must address that. The rewards are massive, but occasionally there are unbelievably bad days at work.
We should have a whole host of ambitions nationally. I want to be able to look my constituents, Catherine and Nigel, in the eye and say that I have done everything I possibly can to ensure that what happened to them does not happen to anyone else.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is talking about improvements nationally, and I hope that we all concur. Does he agree that the Government should ensure that international best practice and improving statistics in several countries are closely investigated and, where possible, replicated?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he is absolutely right. Statistics regularly prove that we are not doing as well as our Scandinavian colleagues, and we should look at that. I know that we are doing so—a lot of work is going on in the Department of Health and elsewhere to see where we can improve.
I really want to be able to say to my friends who suffered from a full-term stillbirth that the care available to parents in similar situations is much better than it was for them. I said in my 2010 speech that the mother of the full-term stillborn baby was told at the beginning of a weekend that her baby had passed away, but she was sent away because an anaesthetist was not available, so she had to come back on the Monday to have the baby delivered.
I do not deny that there will always be stillborn and premature babies, but what matters is how we look after the parents and how neonatal units look after the babies. I am absolutely sure that in this Chamber and this Parliament, and across society, we all want to deliver the best possible care in those situations.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The format in Westminster Hall is that we have the Back-Bench speeches and then, no later than 10.30 am because we are due to finish at 11, we will have the first of the Front-Bench speeches, from the Scottish National party, and then hear from the official Opposition and from the Minister, but if we get to the Front-Bench speeches before that, so be it.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I offer warm congratulations to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on securing the debate. This is a very important issue, but, as he made clear, it does not get the attention that it deserves. It is right and proper that it is being raised in Westminster Hall today, so close to World Prematurity Day.
I want to refer to a campaign that is based in Croydon North, the constituency that I represent, and that is calling for better support for the parents of premature babies. Called The Smallest Things, it was set up in 2014 by Catriona Ogilvy after her two gorgeous little boys, Samuel and Jack Smith, were born prematurely. She and her husband, Mike, were delighted to be parents. They were excited and full of joy as one would expect, but their lives were turned upside down because of the needs of their children and the fact that they did not feel that they were adequately prepared or supported to provide the care and love that their children needed.
The babies were cared for at the special care baby unit at Croydon university hospital. I had the opportunity to visit that unit with representatives from Bliss, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. It is a fantastic unit, and I think that it is typical of many across the country. The quality of the care that is given at those special units is fantastic, but when someone walks into one even as a visitor, let alone as a parent, they are overwhelmed by an incredibly emotional feeling, because what they see is wires, tubes, boxes with portholes and bleeping machines and then those tiny little babies, vulnerable and needy, with all that paraphernalia around them. When we talk to the parents there, they are so delighted and relieved to have that support, but also so terrified and traumatised by what their little newborn baby is having to go through. At a time when they are desperate to hold that child and give them the physical love that they need, they cannot touch the child because of the intensity of the care that is being provided. That is incredibly difficult for parents, but we should pay tribute to all the staff who work in those extraordinary and wonderful live-saving units.
However, although the medical care is fantastic, the support for parents is, frankly, inadequate. The Smallest Things campaign is calling for maternity leave to be extended for mothers of premature babies. That is the primary purpose of the campaign and the point to which I hope the Minister will respond. The campaign organised an online petition that secured 10,000 signatures. Many comments that were made, but I will read out just one, which was put on the petition by a mother talking about her experience. She said:
“We had a baby born 11 weeks early and it crippled us. I lost my job because of the time I had taken off. We racked up huge debts on credit cards and 9 months on”
are
“still struggling immensely to keep a roof over our heads.”
No parent should be put in that position when they have the stress of a little baby struggling for their life at the same time. As a society, we owe better care to parents in that situation.
There are five reasons why The Smallest Things campaign is calling for maternity leave to be extended and they are as follows: financial; bonding with the child; the child’s development; the mother’s mental health; and employment. I will quickly run through each of those issues. On average, the parents of a premature baby spend an additional £2,255 in the course of the hospital stay, but very little financial support is available to parents in those circumstances. They cannot, for instance, apply for disability living allowance, and there is little flexibility to take additional paid leave from work. Therefore, many parents of premature babies, particularly if they are not earning a great deal of money in any case, are pushed into very difficult financial circumstances and even into debt, which is not a problem that parents in that situation should be forced to live with.
The second reason is about bonding between parent and child. A child can spend months in a neonatal unit and, in those circumstances, it can be near impossible for the parent to spend as much time with the child as they would if they were able to take the child home, but the physical bonding between mother and child is critical to the future healthy development of that child and can continue having impacts even in later life. Extended maternity leave would allow mothers to make up for the loss of that very important physical bonding once the child is no longer enclosed in the way that is necessary in a neonatal unit.
The third point is about development. Premature babies have different development patterns from babies born on their due date, so parents returning to work, perhaps after six months’ maternity leave, may well know that their child has reached the development stage only of a three-month-old. They go back to work worrying that their child has not had the support that they needed to reach the stage of development that they should have reached. Often, that can slow down the child’s development for years afterwards. Added to that is the fact that the child’s physical development is often slowed down. That can lead to much more frequent and regular visits to hospital during the first few years of a child’s life. All of that places further demands on the parents and, if they are working, on the employers to give the parents time off. Where employers refuse to do that, we need more flexibility to be permitted under law. The Government need to make that change, as some employers will not or are not able to do that themselves.
The fourth point is about maternal mental health. There is a huge risk of depression for mothers of premature babies. That arises from the anxiety and stress that they experience in having a child who has to struggle for their life for such a long period in their very early and very formative years. The additional financial pressures to which I have referred can add to that stress. Many mothers, struggling in incredibly difficult circumstances to cope, experience mental ill health, but they may not have been alerted to the signs of that and therefore do not seek treatment early enough. That is damaging not only to the mother but to the whole family, and can be damaging to the child.
The fifth point to which the campaign refers is employment. A planned return to employment can be disrupted by a premature birth. Often, a mother who originally planned to return after six months cannot, which can put people in extremely difficult financial circumstances. We need greater flexibility around periods of paid maternity leave for parents of babies who are born too soon.
The name of the campaign, The Smallest Things, comes from a quote from “Winnie-the-Pooh” by A. A. Milne:
“‘Sometimes,’ said Pooh, ‘the smallest things take up the most room in your heart.’”
It is time for these smallest things to take up more room in the Government’s heart as well. Maternity and paternity support for parents of babies born too soon is currently inadequate. I hope that the Minister will address the need for greater financial support for parents in those circumstances, better provision for paid parental leave and better support for the mental health issues that arise among parents whose babies come into the world too soon.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, although it is not a great pleasure to listen to the debate. The quality, of course, is excellent, but the subject matter is so sad. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for organising the debate.
It is fair to say that when our son died because he was born prematurely 15 years ago, the focus was, rightly, on the medical situation. I was extremely unwell with pre-eclampsia and HELLP syndrome, which is a leading cause of maternal death worldwide; I am now the patron of the charity in this country. Bliss has reported, and others will speak, about funding and skills shortages in neonatal units. My own experience is that skilled staff worked hard and did all they could for us medically. More could and probably should have been done to create memories. I have spoken and corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister about that and hope that his excellent work on it will bear fruit. The Minister for family justice is also doing great work for the families of babies who die to ensure best practice during the cremation and burial process.
Today, I want to focus on the other medical services that can make such a difference to premature babies and their families in the long term. This is an issue of growing importance. Just as the elderly are living longer, the very young are surviving in cases where even a few years ago, they would not have done. That is, obviously, good news but, just as with the very old, prematurity presents its own challenges.
First, I turn to mental health, which my friend the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) has mentioned. According to Bliss, 40% of mothers of premature babies are affected by postnatal depression soon after birth, compared with 5% to 10% of mothers generally. For those whose babies die, I suggest that 100% need access to counselling, for both the father and the mother, and possibly for siblings and grandparents as well. It is not acceptable that on 41% of neonatal units, parents have no access to a trained mental health worker and on 30% of neonatal units, parents have no access to any psychological support at all. Not only is allowing mental health problems to go untreated needlessly cruel, but it has wider implications.
The Prime Minister made it clear how important family is to him in a speech last year, when he said that
“for those of us who want to strengthen and improve society, there is no better way than strengthening families and strengthening the relationships on which families are built.”
Sadly, however, a very large number—so large a number I am not even going to mention it—of marriages and relationships break up under the strain of a bereavement or the birth of a very sick baby, and more must be done to face that problem head-on.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I am on a Bill Committee upstairs, but I wanted to come down to this important debate. I raised some issues about summer-born children in a debate recently. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the long term, unless a family’s wishes about delaying the start of education are recognised, and unless that is embedded in the code by the Department for Education, significant problems will be experienced not only by the premature child but by the family?
Victoria Prentis
I agree, not least because I am the mother of a daughter who was born on 28 August. Although she was not premature, I am very aware of the difficulties that prematurity carries with it throughout the lives of children who are born too early.
Julian Knight
My hon. Friend touched on the question of divorce following the sad death of an infant. I wonder whether she would like to reflect on the need for more marriage guidance and support structures for those who face that awful situation, and more widely on how working towards a seven-day NHS will help to alleviate many of the problems that come about with premature birth.
Victoria Prentis
Turning first to the difficulties in relationships, it is true, as I have found out personally and with great difficulty, that fathers and mothers grieve differently. The interface between two very unhappy people can be, as I know from personal experience, very difficult indeed to manage. I am fortunate that my husband and I had been married for a long time before our son died, and we were able to hold it together. We also come from very stable families who were able to provide us with a great deal of support, as was the Church. It is an enormously difficult area for people, however. On the seven-day NHS, yes, it is always terrifying to look at the units at weekends with lower numbers of staff on duty, and to wonder how those people are coping.
I return to poor mental health. It is important to focus not only on the parents but on the babies. From my work with the Parent-Infant Partnership UK, I know that long-term difficulties emerge from a lack of bonding between depressed parents and their children. The sad by-line “two is too late” is substantially true. If prematurity is not to have a multi-generational impact, early action must be taken quickly.
There are simple, practical solutions that would ease the strain on families. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) has been working hard to ensure that more beds are provided in mental health mother and baby units nationwide. We heard, at an excellent lecture that my hon. Friend hosted last week in this place, from a psychiatrist who admits women from Cornwall to his unit in Birmingham. Travelling puts additional burdens on families under strain. Probably 50 or 60 more beds are needed nationwide to meet the commitments we have made to give mental health parity of esteem.
Other associated health professionals need to be in at the off, working with premature babies and their families. Professionals such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dieticians and speech and language therapists form a vital part of the care that premature babies need. Such care can have an enormous effect on development and quality of life. I will give the example of a child who is well known to me—a little boy born very prematurely to well-informed parents, who were not told about the importance of physiotherapy to his development. That must be seen in the context of the fact that 20% of premature babies have a cerebral palsy diagnosis. That little boy is now 10, and, rather than playing football with his friends, he has had a punishing sequence of operations and casts on his legs. His parents were told at their last appointment that physiotherapy from babyhood might have alleviated the need for all that. According to Bliss, 43% of neonatal units had no access to an occupational therapist, even via referral to another service, and 12% of units had no access to a speech and language therapist. As ever, early intervention saves trauma, time and money.
The Government have wisely seen the need for co-ordinated care for the elderly, with named GPs and someone in charge of the entire patient experience. So often, we speak of the need for a joined-up approach to end-of-life care. Only a few weeks ago, the Minister responded to a debate on palliative care and spoke of the importance of integration between sectors. We are making great progress on that front; the Economist Intelligence Unit recently reported that we have the best palliative care in terms of access to services and the quality of those services. Perhaps the time has come to look at the needs of premature babies and their families as a whole and to do some joined-up thinking to ensure our neonatal care is also the best in the world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to be involved in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on bringing the matter to Westminster Hall for consideration and giving us all a chance to participate. Looking back, one of the greatest joys we have all had—I hope we have all had it—is the birth of our own children. Those special occasions are full of joy at the birth of a new child.
I was present when my three children were born, and I did not feel any pain at all; my wife experienced all the pain. The only pain I felt was when she grabbed my hand and would not let go, and the blood circulation got very tight. The births of the grandchildren were all great occasions as well. In this debate, we are hearing about those who did not have the same sort of experience, and I want to add some thoughts about that.
The World Health Organisation promotes World Prematurity Day to raise awareness of the one in 10 babies worldwide who are born prematurely. World Prematurity Day was just last week, so it is not too late to remember it. We are not just talking about babies who are born prematurely and die prematurely; I want to concentrate my remarks on those who are born prematurely and survive.
In addition to the risk they face to their lives, infants who are born early are prone to serious long-term health problems including heart defects, lung disorders and neurological conditions such as cerebral palsy, which the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) referred to. They may reach developmental milestones later than other children do, and they may struggle at school. Premature birth may lead to all those things, and it may mean that some people do not have the privilege of having children.
In 2013, there were 51,000 pre-term births—around 7% of live births—in England and Wales. We have had a couple of Adjournment debates in the Chamber in the last while. On both those occasions, very personal stories were told that resonated with all present. We have similar problems in Northern Ireland; the matter is devolved, but the figures are the same. We can be under no illusions—this issue is a problem not only in third-world countries, but in our country, and it remains an issue that needs to be addressed in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Of the 15 million babies born prematurely worldwide each year, around 1 million die from complications due to their prematurity. More than three quarters of those babies could be saved through better access to quality care and medicines for the mother and the baby, so something can be done. It is important that we try to address those issues.
Complications of pre-term births are the leading cause of death among children under five years of age. Earlier I made a point about the medical conditions sometimes present in those who are born prematurely. Without the appropriate treatment, those who survive often face lifelong disabilities including learning, visual and hearing problems, and their quality of life is greatly affected. Fortunately the United Kingdom has relatively world-class healthcare. Indeed, we are more prepared and more able than many to deal with such complications, but that does not mean that more cannot be done to address this important issue.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I praise the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for securing this important debate. My first child was born more than six weeks premature as a result of an emergency caesarean in the Southern general hospital in Glasgow. Luckily, Emma is now a healthy nine-year-old—touch wood—but, as has been mentioned, not all parents are as lucky. I have friends who have experienced the horrendous strain of a stillbirth. Putting aside party politics, does the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agree with me that special care baby units should be insulated from the cost pressures on NHS hospitals and trusts, no matter what those pressures are?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the personal story that he told us, as others have today. The Minister will address that issue and mention how best he can do that. I would like to see that measure in place; we probably all would. The Minister is the man with the responsibility, so let him earn his money and give us the answer that we need to hear.
I welcome the Health Secretary’s announcement that his new ambition is to reduce the rate of stillbirths and neonatal and maternal deaths in England by 50% by 2030. He has set a goal to be achieved, which indicates a commitment to try to address those issues. Although the Minister will be the one to respond today, the man in charge at the top has indicated that he wants it to happen.
Worryingly, Christine Carson, the clinical practice programme director of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, has said:
“Despite medical advances, rates of premature birth have remained constant over the last 10 years.”
There is a clear issue to be addressed. The hon. Member for Daventry is right that although there seems to be a commitment to change and to doing it better, we have not seen much evidence of that—at least not through the statistics.
Christine Carson continued:
“An early labour—one that occurs before the pregnancy reaches 37 weeks—can pose numerous health risks to the baby, and these risks increase the earlier that child is born.”
I commend, as others have, the work of many charities. I would say to the hon. Member for Banbury that, in the worst of circumstances, it is always good to have faith and the support of the Church. Perhaps the shadow Minister and the Minister will comment on the importance of faith groups and churches, and of the availability of church ministers to offer emotional and perhaps even physical support at a time when families need it most. That is personally important to me, and I know that it is for others.
Christine Carson also said:
“Although more premature babies are surviving, rates of disability among these children remain largely unchanged. The way to tackle this is to provide consistent and high-quality care to prevent early labour”.
If we can do that, we can prevent disabilities and long-term health conditions. We cannot take our eye off the ball when it comes to this issue. It is not good enough that for a decade premature birth rates have been stagnating, rather than improving with advancements in medical science. One of the best ways to promote equality is to give each and every child the best possible start in life with the most equal opportunities possible.
NICE and the World Health Organisation, among others, have produced guidelines on how best to address the problem. We have to recognise that we are short on funds at the moment but some of those recommendations provide good guidance on how best to move forward and how to make inexpensive, cost-effective changes to help to improve outcomes.
I think it was said in the news this morning that the Health Minister is going to raise some more money for the NHS—that is probably in England. Will the Minister give some indication of what that money will be focused on? Maybe it will be focused on A&E or on direct care. Is it possible that some of that funding could go towards this issue?
Some of the recommendations of NICE and the WHO include:
“When to offer progesterone…or a cervical ‘stitch’…to prevent or delay the onset of preterm labour; How to diagnose if a woman’s waters have broken prematurely before labour has begun and which antibiotics to offer to avoid infection; Which drugs will help to delay labour and to whom they should be offered; When to safely clamp and cut a premature baby’s umbilical cord.”
Those four recommendations and thoughts from NICE and the WHO are simple, yet effective measures that could make a real difference in addressing the issue.
I thank the hon. Member for Daventry again for bringing the issue to the House for consideration, and I thank all Members who have contributed. We can and should come together and get the right approaches to improve outcomes for prematurely born children in a way that is compatible with the current state of the Treasury. I look forward to the replies of the shadow Minister and the Minister, but I apologise in advance as I have to go to the Defence Committee at quarter to 11, so I have to be away at about 20 to 11.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on securing this incredibly important debate. I will start by picking up on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that focused on mortality, because our prematurity rates are a national scandal. He is absolutely right when he says that they have stagnated for about a decade. We have one of the worst records in the western world; I believe we are positioned 33 out of 35 countries. That is totally unacceptable considering we have one of the best health services in the world. It is a scandal.
When we talk about statistics and about being 33rd out of 35, we forget that we are actually talking about babies—more than 5,000 babies a year. More than 5,000 families go through the absolute tragedy of stillbirth or neonatal death. I very much welcome the fact that the Government now have a focus on the matter. Statistically, the third biggest cause of stillbirth and neonatal death is prematurity, and that is poignant to this debate.
The Government have recently made an announcement on stillbirth and neonatal death, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly pointed out, with an ambition to reduce rates by 20% by the end of this Parliament and by half by 2030. That is a huge number—more than 2,000 babies who will be saved and 2,000 families who will not have to go through this most traumatic and awful experience. My wife and I have been through a full-term stillbirth, and it is a traumatic experience. As a Government, we should do anything we can to avoid those tragedies. I am glad that there is that renewed focus. That is key— it is the driver to ensure that we have the training and the best possible equipment.
Looking at the whole NHS, some of our hospitals have the best maternity units and are doing the best work anywhere in the world—second to none. Sadly, that is not consistent across the country. The situation is patchy. That is something that I very much hope the Minister will address as part of this programme. We must ensure that we have the later-pregnancy monitoring equipment that can save lives and, more importantly, the training so that midwives know what to spot and have the confidence to stand by what they believe in terms of diagnoses.
There is also the question of what we do when things do not go well; of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry suggested, we cannot avoid stillbirths or neonatal deaths. We can reduce the numbers, and the Government have measures in place to do so, but, sadly and tragically, there will always be stillbirths and neonatal deaths. I secured an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago in which I said that we must have the right procedures, processes and facilities to ensure that those who go through a stillbirth or neonatal death, particularly the parents, have a support network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) talked about gynaecology counsellors and bereavement-trained midwives, and it is important that we have such facilities providing support in every maternity unit in the country. She rightly said that a huge number of marriages fail because of a stillbirth or neonatal death—I think the figure is a staggering 90%, which is enormous; I know the huge pressure that it put on my family and my relationship with my wife. I can entirely see how relationships can be broken up by that hugely traumatic experience. When I talk about the NHS, I know that we have the best facilities in the world, but we have to ensure that those facilities are available across the country. I am talking about specialist suites, bereavement-trained midwives, specialist nurses and psychological support, which is also important.
I am conscious of the time, but I will pick up on two other points. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) mentioned hospital car parking, which was almost flippantly talked about, but it is hugely important. We forget that not everyone can afford to pay the £20 or £30 a week that some hospitals are charging. My hospital in Colchester has a reduced rate of £10 a week, I believe, but for some people even £10 a week is a huge amount of money. It is not only the parents but the families, the grandparents and the carers who are paying, so it is important that hospitals follow the guidance to ensure that hospital parking is affordable—or, even better, free so that families who are going through the most traumatic experience of their lives are not worrying about money. That is really important.
The hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) touched on an interesting point about the pressure on parents from prematurity and from having to go to the hospital. The mother is likely to be in hospital on an ongoing basis, but we forget about the importance of the father’s role. A father gets only two weeks’ paternity leave, after which he will be going back to work and either thinking all day about his premature child and then racing up to the hospital to try to squeeze in time with the baby in the morning and evening, or putting his job at risk by taking that time off, regardless of the consequences. Government guidance on the importance of employers understanding and recognising the pressures of prematurity on families is important.
I am conscious of the time, so I will conclude by saying that we have one chance to get this right. I welcome the steps that the Government are taking. When they announced their ambition to reduce by half the number of stillbirths and neonatal deaths the week before last, it was my proudest moment in the six months since I was elected to this place. I welcome those steps, but we need to go further and ensure that people have the facilities, the processes and the places to go to as they go through this incredibly traumatic experience. We must also make sure that stillbirths and neonatal deaths are as rare as possible. I welcome this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry on securing it. This is an incredibly important issue that we can all get behind and support.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
If the Front Benchers can keep their speeches to 10 minutes, and if the Minister can conclude his remarks just after 10.55 am, Mr Heaton-Harris will have three minutes in which to offer us a pithy summary of the debate and I will have 30 seconds to put the motion to the House. We will then have achieved everything we set out to achieve today.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and congratulate him on securing the debate. I am delighted to make a small contribution on behalf of the Scottish National party.
The hon. Gentleman started by saying that the House does not give enough attention to this issue, so again I pay tribute to him for securing the debate and for his dedication to this issue over a number of years. He delivered an excellent speech, citing examples and stories to highlight the issue. I was incredibly touched by his personal example from Catherine and Nigel. I put on record my sympathy for the loss of Luke—what an incredibly touching and harrowing story. As a father, I find it impossible to comprehend how difficult that time must be, not only for Catherine and Nigel, or for any of the other parents we have heard about today, but for all those who have experienced pre-term birth, whether or not their child has survived. It is an incredibly traumatising time for all those parents.
The hon. Gentleman said that if we were to match the pre-term survival rate of Sweden, we would save 1,000 babies a year in the UK, which would save 1,000 families from tragedy, so I hope the Minister will look at that. I absolutely agree that we must ensure that stillbirths and pre-term babies are as few as possible and that parents are properly supported. On one of his visits to his local hospital, the hon. Gentleman learned that three babies had passed away the night before. We cannot imagine the pain felt by the families, but as he said, we must also recognise and pay tribute to the work of our NHS staff, who will share that pain and trauma. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those staff, who do an incredible job for all of us. I sincerely congratulate the hon. Gentleman on doing a great service to his constituents and friends.
The hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), in another good speech, cited the excellent unit at Croydon university hospital, which he visited with Bliss. He said that the families were delighted to receive excellent NHS support but were also terrified and traumatised by not being able to hold their babies—babies who had survived but required extra help—because they were so fragile. When a child is suffering, it is the most natural maternal and paternal thing for their parents to want to hold them. The difficulty experienced by those parents cannot be comprehended, and we must ensure that the necessary emotional and practical help and support is in place. The hon. Gentleman gave the example of the family of an 11-week pre-term baby being forced into debt, which is an absolute tragedy that must be sorted out. I hope the Minister will touch on that in his contribution.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) brought her personal experiences to the debate in a very touching way. She cited some excellent but harrowing statistics that are difficult for us to understand. Some 40% of mothers of children born pre-term experience mental health problems, compared with 5% to 10% of mothers of children born at full term. That takes us back to the support required by parents of premature babies. It is absolutely right that extra support should be available for all parents if their baby passes away, but we must also consider the support that is available to parents whose children survive. She also mentioned the link between pre-term babies and cerebral palsy, which my family has experienced. She is right to draw attention to that, because it needs wider consideration. I thank her for her contribution.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a typically reasoned and measured contribution, touching on the long-term health problems to which surviving pre-term babies are susceptible. That point was in tune with many of the other contributions made today. He mentioned one statistic that startled me: three quarters of the 1 million babies around the world who, tragically, die after pre-term birth could have survived with adequate care and support. We must address that not just here in the UK but internationally. Surely we could consider it in our aid budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) made a passionate personal plea to the Minister in an intervention, and I hope that the Minister will respond. Finally, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) also brought his personal experience to the debate in a touching manner; he made a great speech. He is absolutely right: it is a national scandal that we have one of the worst pre-term mortality rates in the western world. He reminded us that when we talk about that mortality, we are talking about babies. Hopefully that brings the issue home to all of us. He also recognised the difficulties experienced by employees, and the fact that employers must take better cognisance of the fact that their employees in that situation will need extra support. I hope that the Minister will take note of that too, and refer back to it when he sums up.
The World Health Organisation promotes World Prematurity Day to raise awareness of the one in 10 babies worldwide who are born prematurely—that is, before the 37th week of pregnancy. It is the leading cause of death in newborn babies and the second most common cause of death in children under five. According to Bliss, a charity that supports families with premature babies and helps raise funds for adequate hospital equipment, 15 million babies worldwide are born prematurely every year, or 29 every minute, and 1 million of those will not survive. In the UK, 60,000 babies are born prematurely every year, which is one in 13.
A motion has been lodged in the Scottish Parliament commemorating world prematurity day and congratulating Sarah Brown on launching a new £1.5 million study on improving educational outcomes and life chances for premature babies. The study is called the Theirworld Edinburgh birth cohort. It was launched last week at the University of Edinburgh, and it will involve researchers at the university following 400 newborns from birth to adulthood, collecting biological samples and brain scans as well as information about socioeconomic status and educational attainment. There is a lot of work going on in Scotland at the moment that I would have loved to mention if there had been slightly more time.
From a local perspective, my constituency is served by the maternity and neonatal unit at Wishaw general hospital. In 2013, there were 5,988 births, 426 of them premature. Some 13% of those premature babies were born weighing less than 1,500 grams. Wishaw general hospital has had its problems in the past, but I am proud to say that NHS Lanarkshire is the only health board in Scotland to have received nominations for the Royal College of Midwives’ annual midwifery awards, which are coming up in March. My local health board has been shortlisted in two categories: the better births award, for which Maureen McSherry and Carole Burns have been nominated for their post-delivery debriefing, and the Pregnacare award for maternity support worker of the year, for which my constituent Leigh-Ann Johnstone from Airdrie has been nominated.
Earlier this year, NHS Lanarkshire implemented Scotland’s first heart rate observation system. Equipment has been installed in Wishaw general hospital to monitor the heart rate of premature and sick babies. It provides early warning of irregularities and can indicate the development of infection, a leading cause of death in vulnerable babies. I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Daventry for securing this debate, and I thank everyone for their contributions.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on securing the debate and on how he introduced the subject, which, as he rightly said, does not receive enough attention in the House or in the media. Hon. Members from all parties have made excellent and sometimes very moving contributions to this debate; I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition.
World Prematurity Day on 17 November gives us the opportunity to raise awareness of premature birth and concerns involving pre-term babies and their families. The landscape is ever changing; advances in medicine mean that many more babies survive than ever before, and many survive at very young ages that even a few years ago would have seemed impossible. We should warmly welcome those advances, while acknowledging the extra demands that they bring. We should also use this debate as an opportunity to take stock of the progress that we have made in improving outcomes for premature babies and, more importantly, to focus on the challenges that we face and what more we can do to ensure that progress continues.
This issue is extremely significant, and I am pleased to see it receiving attention and a good turnout by Members. As the hon. Member for Daventry said in his opening remarks, an estimated 15 million babies around the world are born prematurely each year, and pre-term birth problems remain the leading cause of death among children under five, responsible for nearly 1 million deaths in 2013 alone. The World Health Organisation estimates that if everyone had access to the same kinds of intervention that we in the developed world enjoy, three quarters of those babies could be saved. This country has a proud cross-party tradition of supporting international development, and I hope that world prematurity day will provide a catalyst for us to redouble our efforts to support programmes to improve outcomes worldwide.
Turning to matters closer to home, in 2013 more than 50,000 babies were born prematurely in England and Wales, meaning that tens of thousands of families faced one of the most terrifying and physically and emotionally exhausting experiences imaginable. I recently spoke to one of my constituents about the issue, and I wanted to share her story with the House, as I am sure that it will be familiar to many who have, sadly, faced the same issues. She told me:
“My twins were born nine weeks prematurely, and seeing your tiny poorly babies hooked up to machines and wires, having to watch while your baby’s heart has stopped and seeing them helped back to life, praying the machine will pick up a rhythm again, isn’t something that I would wish on my worst enemy.”
I am sure that some Members will recognise the intensity of that statement. She goes on to say:
“All we want is for all premature babies to be looked after and given the best chance possible, with the best medical care available to help them to survive”.
Who can disagree with that? I am pleased to say that my constituent’s twins are now four years old, fit and healthy and attending a local primary school, which by coincidence I visited last Friday.
We have made significant progress on increasing the number of premature children who go on to live full lives. Mortality rates have improved year on year, falling by 15.5% between 2006 and 2012. Thousands of people are alive now who would simply not have survived in previous decades. That is the impact of the progress that we have made in recent times, and particularly of advances in treating the most premature babies. We should be rightly proud of that.
However, there is no room for complacency. I am sure that hon. Members share my concern about the recent report by the charity Bliss, which has already been highlighted, particularly by the hon. Member for Daventry. The report, “Hanging in the balance”, argues that neonatal services are “stretched to breaking point” and states that two thirds of neonatal intensive care units do not have enough doctors and nurses, with 2,140 more nurses needed to fill the gap. It also identifies a shortage in junior doctors, a situation that could worsen if the Government do not reverse their current antagonistic stance toward the profession.
The Bliss report goes on to state that more than 850 babies were transferred between hospitals last year because there was not enough space or staff at the units where they were. More than 100 of those babies were ventilated. Such transfers are unnecessary and risky. Frankly, at such a time, the family has quite enough stress already, so I hope that we can work to reduce the number of transfers needed in future.
A report by the Royal College of Midwives states that more than 40% of wards became so busy last year that they were forced to close their doors. The average unit closed its doors on five occasions, with some closing more than 20 times. That situation cannot be allowed to continue. One key issue is training. Trusts currently face the Catch-22 situation of having insufficient qualified staff to cover for nurses on training, while the lack of training contributes to the shortage of qualified staff.
It is clear that a co-ordinated approach is required from the Government, the NHS and local managers to tackle the issue. We welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State on 13 November of extra investment in high-tech digital equipment and training, but we question just how far £4 million will go, particularly when we consider that the shortfall in nurses has almost doubled in the last five years, while during the same period the proportion of nurses with specialist qualifications has fallen by 19%. I would welcome any comments from the Minister about when we can expect that investment to come on stream, and what impact he expects it to have on the number of staff available in our overstretched neonatal units.
However, the biggest issue is without doubt a lack of adequate funding for neonatal services across the board. We welcome the work being done by NHS England and its partners to review the payment model for neonatal services and the priority being given to this area in next year’s NHS plans. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that will result in the increases in funding that are required to provide the right level of care for premature babies. I also hope that he can reassure us that we will be able to provide that care in the right place, with the number of transfers being minimised as far as possible.
As I set out earlier, there has been a huge amount of progress in reducing the rates of stillbirths and infant deaths. Sadly, however, we know that there is further work to do. The national confidential inquiry, which was led by the University of Leicester, found that more than 60% of stillbirths might have been avoided with better care. As the hon. Member for Daventry said, Britain is currently ranked 33rd out of 35 countries in the developed world for stillbirth rates. As the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) said, that is a national scandal, and there is an urgent need for improvement. He also quite rightly pointed out the massive regional variations that exist. Those variations should be avoidable, and they inform us that best practice should be disseminated further so that improvements can be made across the board.
We welcome the Secretary of State’s declaration of his ambition to reduce the rate of stillbirths and neonatal and maternal deaths in England by 50% by 2030. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, the rate of stillbirths has remained stable for the last 10 years and 2030 is clearly a long way off, so we hope that some of the issues can be tackled in the much shorter term. I would welcome any comments from the Minister about what progress is expected within the next five years.
I will return to the experience of my constituent for a moment. In addition to telling me about the obvious pain that she experienced during the time that her babies were in hospital, she went on to express to me something that appears, sadly, to be common among mothers of premature children—a sense of guilt for not being able to carry their children until full term. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) quite rightly raised the issue of parental health, as did the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and we have heard that up to 40% of mothers of premature babies are affected by postnatal depression soon after birth. So it is not just the premature babies who need the care; it is the parents as well. That is why it is so concerning that a third of neonatal units have no overnight accommodation, 41% have no access to a trained mental health worker and 30% are unable to offer psychological support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) highlighted the challenges set out in the campaign The Smallest Things, including the financial, emotional and developmental challenges that premature births create, and the impact that those challenges can have on the mental health of parents. Interestingly, he also touched on the need for greater flexibility in maternity and paternity leave. Although we have legislation on such leave, it is a fact that working mothers still face considerable workplace discrimination, and from what my hon. Friend said it seems that those problems are exacerbated when a mother is dealing with a premature birth. I hope we will see some recognition of that issue by the Minister.
I also hope that the Minister can confirm to us what steps he will take to expand access to mental health services in neonatal units. We should also point out that services have been stretched, so a significant allocation of resources is required if progress is to continue to be made.
We will continue to hold the Government to account to ensure that the vision of England as one of the safest places in the world to have a baby becomes a reality, and while the Government continue to make progress they will have our support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
It is a great pleasure to answer another debate on neonatal care. It demonstrates that there is a real head of steam behind this important issue. I cannot comment with any experience on the number of debates on this issue that there were in the previous Parliament, but it is clear that there is now a critical mass of Members in this House, and interest in all parties, to try to do something to improve neonatal care, whether that is for babies who are born prematurely or at term.
First, I add my tribute and thanks to those given by the shadow Ministers and spokesmen, the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), for the personal stories told by Members, and I will state on the record that I think the whole House is grateful to them for their personal bravery in explaining what has happened to them, and to other Members who have told the stories of their constituents.
It was with such a story that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) began his speech, discussing the account of Catherine and Nigel Allcott, and their son and daughter. He reminded us, as did many hon. Members later, that we can speak about statistics and percentages but what we are actually dealing with are newborn people, little ones and “the smallest things”, who deserve the greatest protection and care that we can possibly give, because they could not be more vulnerable.
In a 2014 study, The Lancet estimated that there were 5.5 million newborn deaths in the world every year and it is that stupefyingly large number that we are addressing today in discussing World Prematurity Day. I know that many speeches were addressed to the domestic situation, but I am very grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for pointing out that we have an international obligation in this regard, and I will certainly talk to my counterpart in the Department for International Development about the areas that our aid spending are being focused on in terms of healthcare and neonatal support, to see if we are doing all we can to try to spread the best practice in this country and Europe to those parts of the world that are beginning their journey in creating a universal healthcare system for their populations.
With that in mind, I turn to the current situation in the United Kingdom. In this country we have some of the finest neonatal care in the world, but what has been apparent in the speeches given today—accurately reflecting the facts—is that we have far too much variability. That is the principal reason why we are at the bottom of the pack in terms of developed countries when measuring rates of stillbirth, which is by means of proxy for the way that we look after premature babies. So I will outline what the Government plan to do about that situation, because it significantly touches—indeed, it does not just touch but covers—the ground that those campaigning to improve care for premature babies have so rightly highlighted, and the Bliss report is an important contribution to that work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and many other hon. Members have pointed to the announcement a couple of weeks ago by the Secretary of State that we wish to see the rates of stillbirth, neonatal death and maternal death reduce by 20% by 2020, and by 50%, or by half, by 2030. Within that target, we include a reduction in brain injury for babies.
It is worth pointing out that many of the contributory factors to stillbirth and to brain injury are the same for prematurity, which, in the round, are public health measures. They have not been covered much in this debate but I would like to raise them, because it is very important that we also understand the obligations of parents, to ensure that we can bring down the rates of prematurity and stillbirth.
We still have too many mothers in this country smoking. We know that smoking is a significant contribution to prematurity. If we were to improve the variability of smoking rates across the country, which is actually quite shocking, we would do much to reduce rates of stillbirth. In looking at the smoking rates across the country, it is quite interesting that there is not just a simple binary division between areas of affluence and areas of deprivation. There are some areas of significant deprivation where local public health partners have made considerable strides in reducing smoking rates compared with areas that are quite close by. Likewise, obese pregnant women are much more likely to experience miscarriage or pre-term birth than those women who are in the normal body mass index range.
Therefore, we have significant public health challenges ahead of us in reducing obesity, smoking, drinking and substance abuse, and if we are able to achieve those reductions in partnership with parents across the country we will have made the biggest stride that we can towards reducing rates of prematurity, ensuring that those babies that are born premature are as healthy as they can be and reducing rates of stillbirth, whether premature or term.
I wish to turn to the University of Leicester study and the “Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries in the UK”—or MBRRACE-UK—report that was published last week, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The study highlights the challenge ahead regarding the care of neonates across the country. The figures are arresting. In half of all the cases highlighted, at least one aspect of antenatal care that could have had an impact on whether the baby was born alive could have been improved. In a third of cases, there were significant problems with bereavement care and in a quarter there were major issues with one or more aspects of intrapartum care.
For me, perhaps the most troubling statistic in the report is that in only a quarter of all the stillbirths it looked at was there an internal case review. We are not improving our position as quickly as we could because we are not reviewing cases in enough instances—we should be reviewing 100% of them—and we are not spreading the knowledge of the reviews across the system. That is one reason why the Secretary of State is so keen to turn the NHS into a learning organisation. Until we get the NHS to do well something that it currently does badly—spreading learning from places that have had a problem, a tragedy, and from those that have made significant strides—we will not make improvements. I refer hon. Members to the experience of St George’s hospital in Tooting, where they have undergone that journey in the past few years, just through dogged clinical persistence, and have been able to change the outcomes for children attending the maternity unit.
I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) on support for parents, and I shall certainly take his valid point about maternity leave—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) added comments about paternity leave—to my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions. I would hope that all employers—not that they will know about or watch this debate—would have the consideration to behave properly with parents of a premature child. The hon. Gentleman’s point about the need to reflect the development of a baby who has been born prematurely in maternity pay arrangements is interesting and important. I shall certainly take his comments back to colleagues but I can make no promises about what we can do.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about mothers’ mental health, which is something that the Government put a lot of emphasis on in the previous Parliament. We know about the importance of investing in perinatal mental health and that it pays significant dividends if done successfully. That is why we announced in March that we will invest an additional £75 million in it over this Parliament. The services, as provided, are not sufficiently good and we need to do much to improve them.
I hope that many of the instances that hon. Members have mentioned of the lack of support for parents with a premature child who is either living or has died and the lack of counselling for both mother and father—along with the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry about marriage counselling and the powerful ones made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) about the difficulty of maintaining a marriage through a premature or stillbirth—can be addressed through the additional money. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who is now in his place, was critical in securing that funding in March.
Various hon. Members also made important points about parking charges and travelling. I hope that NHS England’s 2014 neonatal critical care services review and service specifications will lead, in the next few years, to ensuring that we have more comprehensive neonatal cover. There will be instances when that is not possible—we cannot predict every occasion on which there will be stress on a maternity service—but I hope that the services specifications will come to correct that in the next few years. Hospitals should follow the Department of Health guidance on parking, which contains specific recommendations to ensure that people who have to park for long periods are catered for.
I know that hon. Members raised additional issues that I have not been able to cover in this fascinating debate but I shall ensure that they are responded to afterwards. I thank all hon. Members for their interesting and personal accounts regarding this important subject.
Chris Heaton-Harris
May I thank, through you Mr Hollobone, the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me and the House the time to discuss this important issue? I thank the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for their contributions, and also the Front-Bench spokespeople for the consensual and cross-party basis on which they made their speeches, which is the basis from which we should attack issues about premature babies.
Many important issues have been raised, including mental health care and the acknowledgement of the Government’s ambition to halve the rate of stillbirths and neonatal and maternal deaths by 2030. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health issues an annual national neonatal audit programme report, and the 2014 report came forward with some interesting points, some of which we have talked about today. Sometimes, unfortunately, in Britain in 2014 we were still missing development checks for premature babies, and that is raised in the report. It also mentions something I find shocking, which we have all talked about in our speeches today. We are doing better, and we are focused on the ambition of doing the best we can for parents with a premature baby, but one in 10 families is still not recorded as having a consultation with a senior member of the neonatal team within 24 hours of their baby’s admission. It is unbelievable that that can happen when the parents are at their most stressed and worried.
I thank the Minister for his reply and thank everyone who has taken part. I thank Bliss and other charities for their work in this area, and I especially thank my constituents Catherine and Nigel for their magnificent work in trying to ensure that no one else goes through what they had to go through.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World Prematurity Day.
Children of Alcoholics
(8 years, 12 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
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for children of alcoholics.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am glad to see the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Edward Timpson) in his place. The matter we are about to debate is something I know he will care deeply about, and I very much look forward to working with him over the months—and, I hope, years—to come, to implement many of the things that I will talk about. I think he will embrace wholeheartedly what I call for, and I look forward to turning some of the ideas that we will debate into action.
I have done some difficult jobs in politics with my right hon. and hon. Friends, but in many ways this is the hardest speech I will have made in my 11 years in the House: it will be the first time I have talked publicly about being the child of an alcoholic. My dad was an amazing individual. He was warm and charismatic. He was the son of Irish immigrants. He dragged himself into grammar school and into university. He was a great idealist who devoted his life to public service. His warmth, charisma and idealism inspired me to join the Labour party when I was 15, and it was his example that inspired me to get stuck into politics—to do my bit to try to make our country a bit better.
My dad battled with an addiction to alcohol for most of his adult life. When he lost the woman whom he loved so passionately—my mother—at the age of 52 to pancreatic cancer, it knocked him over the edge. I know from first-hand experience the damage and harm that come to families living with an alcoholic. I know what that sense of guilt and shame feels like. I know about the kind of co-dependency that builds up in families as different members of the family do what they can to support each other. In my case, it was a co-dependency with my mum, who I talked to about my dad’s drinking from the age of seven or eight. I know all too well the feeling that most children of alcoholics have as they wrestle with why they cannot fix things or make things better. I know what it feels like to worry constantly about whether your parent is okay. You worry about whether they are on a floor and whether they are eating. I know what it is like to be at a bedside in an intensive care unit, having been told that your parent has maybe a one in 10 chance of surviving. I know the agony of constantly asking yourself whether there was more you could have done to help stop that drinking. I know that there are no answers to those questions.
I know what it feels like to feel second best. “Second Best” was the title of a great book written by Calum Best, the son of George Best, the footballer. Calum has done a great deal over the past few years to highlight the plight of children of alcoholics and to explain what the emotional turmoil feels like. I also know that if anything, I had it easy. Ultimately, I had a loving home. So many children of alcoholics have it an awful lot worse than I did, and many of them are here with us today in the House.
Children of alcoholics are five times more likely to develop an eating disorder. They are something like three times more likely to attempt suicide. They are three to four times more likely to become alcoholics themselves, and that is what happened to my dad. He, too, was the child of an alcoholic. In the months since my dad’s death just before the election campaign started, it has been a struggle to decide whether to speak up and speak out. I have been inspired by such people as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) to take the plunge.
For me, the challenge was the programming that comes with the fourth commandment, which is for people to honour their mum and dad. I struggled with whether I would be dishonouring my dad’s memory by bringing this issue into the public domain and talking about it. I suppose I concluded that I had to honour the boy who became a man who became my dad, because there was no help for him when he was growing up as the child of an alcoholic. If I want to change things for children in the future, I have to play my part by speaking up.
The final trigger for speaking up was the loss of a great friend to this House, Charles Kennedy. When I read a lot of the media coverage about his death, so much was riddled through with the old clichés about how Charles was a man who battled with demons. Charles was not battling with demons; he was battling with a disease—alcoholism. The sooner we start talking about alcoholism as a disease and the sooner we get rid of the taboos, the stigma and the shame, the easier we will make it for hazardous drinkers in this country to get the help they need to quit or to cut down.
The scale of alcohol harm is profound. It is estimated to cost our country something like £21 billion a year. It costs the national health service something like £3.5 billion a year, and there are something like 1 million accident and emergency admissions related to alcohol harm each year. I have accompanied people on a couple of those admissions myself in the past few years. When we look at different parts of the country, we can see how the problem is getting worse. Figures from the House of Commons Library that I am publishing today show that the number of A&E admissions due to alcohol harm is rising in two thirds of local authority areas. The problem is not going away; it is snowballing and getting worse. As a country, we have to decide not only how we will break the silence around the disease, but how we will break the cycle of alcoholism cascading down the generations.
I would like to offer a few thoughts today, based on my conversations with friends in the House. I thank in particular the host of organisations that have had the good grace to listen to me bleat on about this issue over the past few months. Some of the charities have helped me try to build an integrated picture of my path. In particular, I give enormous thanks to Hilary Henriques of the National Association for Children of Alcoholics. It was through her doors that I walked about a month and a half after my dad died. NACOA was magnificent. It helped me see clearly for the first time that I was not on my own and that my dad’s drinking was not my fault, and that, frankly, there was little I could have done to change things for him. NACOA celebrates its 25th anniversary this year. It is a small group that is run on a shoestring, and it has helped more than 200,000 children in our country over the past few years with the same kind of advice that it gave me earlier this summer.
Additionally, I thank Sir Ian Gilmore at the Royal College of Surgeons; the British Medical Association; the Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield; Alcohol Concern; Adfam; Turning Point; and the Institute of Alcohol Studies for the advice that they have given. I do not want to offer the Minister some kind of manifesto that is perfect in all its design; I want to start a conversation, which I hope he will engage with in the months and years to come. Last night, I asked Members of this House and the other place whether they would be interested in joining an all-party group for children of alcoholics, and I have been overwhelmed by the response and moved by the personal stories that colleagues have shared. I hope that the group can work together with a number of other all-party groups—we have the chair of one here this morning—that have done such a magnificent job to champion solutions to the curse of alcohol harm.
Let me offer the Minister a few points to get the debate going. Above all, I want the Government to do more to support extraordinary helplines such as NACOA, which make such an enormous difference. As a former Minister with responsibility for children’s health, I know that there is a challenge when it comes to specialised commissioning for children’s services. There is never enough of a problem in any one part of the country to create a critical mass of demand, so we have to find ways in which local authorities can work together to put in place specialised commissioning. Crucially, however, we need to support charities such as NACOA, which is making so much difference to so many people.
I want to ensure that we have a Minister with clear ownership of the problem. The responsibilities span not only the brief of the Minister here today but those of Department of Health Ministers, so I was glad that the Minister for Government Policy, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), told me that the Minister here today is in charge of co-ordinating the challenge. The Home Office took the lead on the alcohol strategy published in 2012. We need clear, visible ownership of who will provide and lead the support policy for children of alcoholics.
I want the Government to set out clearly a plan of action to support children of alcoholics. Having someone in charge of creating a solution is not good enough if we do not have a plan in place. As the Minister knows, the Government published their alcohol strategy in March 2012. It did not mention children, support for children or the challenge of children of alcoholics. Over the next few months we need the Minister to come up with a specific plan to provide support for the children of alcoholics. He might tell me that the forthcoming report, “Collateral Damage”, to be published in 2016, will be the framework for that. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the bravery he has shown this morning in his moving description of his own experiences and what happened to his dad. He is asking the Minister a list of things. As he mentioned, I chair the all-party group on foetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Will he include in his list of asks the children of alcoholic mothers who drink during pregnancy? We need the awareness and support that he has been talking about to be applied to that group as well.
Liam Byrne
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the leadership that he has shown on that. Mothers who drink during pregnancy are absolutely included in the asks. I hope that the Government will accelerate the publication of advice for pregnant mums about what it is safe and not safe for expectant mothers to drink.
I want every public health director in England to make an estimate of how many children of alcoholics live locally. I want a local plan to make sure that hospitals, GPs and school nurses and teachers know how to identify the children of alcoholics and how to put help within their reach. The challenge with alcoholism as it relates to children is that it often falls between stools—between the public health director, the commissioning groups for children’s social care, the groups for adult social care, and primary care services. The children of alcoholics often sit in a hole in commissioning, which is why we need a specific plan of action locally.
I want the Government to publish a national league table of which councils are spending what on alcohol treatment, so that it becomes much easier for the public and parliamentarians to see where the problem is greatest. In that way we can challenge whether public health directors, councils and health and wellbeing boards have put in place the right provision for hazardous drinkers who are parents.
I want to make sure we have a public information campaign aimed at parents who are hazardous drinkers, so that they are clear about the damage they do to their children and how they can get help. What has been good about the way in which we talk about smoking is that we now aim our messaging at parents and help them understand the harm to children. Now that alcohol harm is the third biggest public health risk after obesity and smoking, it is time for a public health campaign on the same lines aimed at parents who are hazardous drinkers.
I want the Government to change the law, particularly the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, so that it would be illegal for under-16s to drink at home. Current legislation allows for drinking at home from the age of five, and I think that is the wrong message. I congratulate the coalition of alcohol charities that are preparing proposals on that front.
If the Scottish Government win their case for minimum alcohol pricing, I hope that the Government will look again at introducing that policy across the whole of England. Crucially, every charity and campaign group has said to me that we need far more research into the scale of the problem. The research that we have at the moment is patchy, and I think the Minister could do a great deal with a very small amount of money to make sure we have a good research base in place.
The 10 points that I have mentioned are a framework that parliamentarians can discuss over the weeks and months to come. I hope they are ideas that the Minister will be able to embrace wholeheartedly. If I were to pull out just my top three, however, the proposals would be as follows. First, we should equip front-line professionals to take proactive steps to identify the children of alcoholics and to make sure that they are equipped to advise and counsel children on where they can get help. For me it was absolutely crucial to understand that I was not alone as the child of an alcoholic, that my dad’s drinking was not my fault and that there was not much I could do about it. I want every child of an alcoholic in this country to know that they are not alone and that help, such as the NACOA helpline, is on hand.
My second priority would be the public information campaign. Many people have said to me that the Minister should take inspiration from the success of the public smoking campaigns, and we should gear up quite quickly a campaign aimed at hazardous drinkers who are parents.
Thirdly, we need to make sure that there is the right investment in treatment services up and down the land. We have made great progress over the past few years in putting in place the right budgets for drug treatment. By and large, we now know what works when it comes to alcohol treatment, but provision is patchy. The Minister will tell us that it is down to local authorities to ensure that the right treatment is in place, but right now, we as parliamentarians do not know whether the right treatment is in place. We need transparency so that we can get to grips with where budgets need to go up and where they need to go down.
What is shocking about some of the statistics that I am publishing this morning is that some local authority areas have seen 20%, 30% or 40% increases over the past few years in the number of A&E admissions due to alcohol harm. That tells us there are particular parts of the country where the problem is incredibly pronounced. Behind those statistics are children, which is why we need to know which local authorities are spending what so that we can campaign for better support.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has secured the debate. Does he agree that, as was certainly the case with my mother, many alcoholics are functional? They often go to work and outwardly lead normal lives, so they do not present themselves at A&E and the problem is invisible to many people. We need to make sure that in the campaign, and in whatever the Minister responds with, we understand that this group of people is wider than the public perceive.
Liam Byrne
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Her intervention gives me the chance to say on the record how important her courage in speaking out some years ago was in persuading me that I could do it too. I very much follow in her footsteps.
Every child of an alcoholic has a different story. My right hon. Friend’s story is different from mine. Each of us in our own way and on our own journey learned that we could not really change things for our parents, but we sure as hell can change things for our children. That is what we have to do now as parliamentarians. We have to try to break the silence on this issue so that we can break the cycle of alcohol harm cascading down the generations. To normalise this conversation, we have to organise this conversation. We must sweep aside the stigma and the taboos. We must treat alcoholism as the disease that it is and make sure that help is within reach of those who need it. That is the only way we can help to heal so many lives up and down this country. It is a difference that I think we can make with practical steps over the months and years to come. I look forward to working with the Minister on putting some practical action into place.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I want to put on the record my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) on securing the debate and sharing some difficult personal experiences with the Chamber. That was not an easy thing to do—it is not an easy thing for anyone in public life. However, I hope that the conversation that he talked about opening will bring huge benefit to the lives of many children and improve the public health of our nation as a result.
In the brief time available to me, I want to outline and expand on a couple of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. He is absolutely right that substance misuse—in this case, alcohol misuse—is an illness. Often there are links with anxiety, depression and people struggling with mental health problems. Yet our framework for tackling alcoholism in this country seems somewhat fragmented. I am sure that the Minister will want to pick up on that issue in his response. Local health services commission mental health services, and yet it is local authorities that have primary responsibility for tackling issues to do with substance misuse.
The two issues are so inherently intertwined that the support for both the people suffering from mental ill health and their families has to be co-ordinated and holistic, but it is difficult to understand how that can be achieved with a fragmented commissioning landscape. For me, that is at the heart of this dilemma—this challenge—and the right hon. Gentleman made the point very well. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, particularly on how we can better unify the services available for people who are alcoholics and their families.
The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) on securing this important debate, and even more on the manner in which he introduced it and his courage in speaking out about his experience with his own family. It is a testament to him that his determination to give a voice to the many thousands of children who find themselves in a similar predicament has led to today’s debate—and, I am sure, to many conversations in the coming weeks and months. I read about his dad, Dermot, this morning. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman talking about his dad’s life and how he inspired him to enter the world of politics and make the world a better place. I also heard about the ongoing anguish that his father’s battle with alcoholism caused him, which will inevitably still affect him today. But there is no shame in that whatever—absolutely none.
I am really pleased that the right hon. Gentleman made the decision to speak up today and put on the record his desire to ensure that, from here on in, those children out there will feel more able to deal with the consequences of living in such a family environment. Even more important is his desire to prevent the problem from even happening in the first place. To that end, I look forward to working with him and the organisations that have helped him to prepare for this debate, so that we can take stock of both the progress that has been made and where there are shortcomings and a lack of understanding. There is sometimes a lack of encouragement to those out there who still feel very much unable to let others know of the suffering that they are having to deal with day after day.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I salute the bravery of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) in introducing this debate. On the Minister’s point, will he ensure that all educational professionals have the appropriate training for when a child might disclose something to them? Many alcoholic parents are very concerned about losing their children, so will seek to involve them in the secret to try to prevent their child from being taken into care. The Minister is from the Department for Education, so will he look at whether all educational professionals are suitably trained for disclosure?
Edward Timpson
That is hugely important. It is not a surprise to me that one of the top three points that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill wanted me to address was the fact that it is the professionals who interact with children daily who are best placed to try to spot the signs and act on them sooner rather than later. In that way, children who have nowhere else to turn will receive timely and sympathetic support, backed by the knowledge of that professional about what works and how they can help the child and their family to turn the corner—knowledge that has so often been lacking in the past.
I am conscious that I have only five minutes in which to address all the right hon. Gentleman’s extremely well-made points. We must base any response on the premise that every child has a right to grow up in a safe and secure environment. Parents play a crucial role in how their children develop and behave. Of course, parents should act as role models for their children, but we recognise that parental alcohol dependency is a disease that affects many parents. It can limit their parenting capacity, which can have serious consequences for their children.
Rather than read out the response that a Government Minister might normally give to this sort of debate, I shall discuss how my own experience reflects what the right hon. Gentleman said and why I, too, am determined to join him in trying to do more and to do right by the children who still have to live in such circumstances.
I grew up in a family who fostered many children, of whom a large proportion, including one of my adopted brothers, came from a home in which alcohol misuse had been a regular feature. We cannot underestimate the lifelong impact on such a child, who, whether for a short time or a much longer period of their childhood, has been trapped in a cycle. They learn behaviour that they find difficult to avoid later in life, which creates that cycle between generations, and they often witness violence and conflict and feel a sense of isolation. To try to unravel all that is a huge task for anyone. If we superimpose on to that the scale of the problem, irrespective of the progress that has been made on the public health agenda and reducing alcohol dependency, we will see that huge problems further down the line are being stored up for future generations.
In both the private and public cases I dealt with in the family courts, alcohol was often a feature; as the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) rightly said, it was sometimes a feature in families of whom the overriding public impression was that alcohol would not be at the heart of their problems. On the surface, these are functional families, but underneath there are serious issues that need to be addressed. To that end, notwithstanding that this is a complex issue that transcends the work of many Departments, the Government have a role, because there is commonality: a shared ambition to ensure that no child should be left behind in our determined efforts to try to tackle the problem.
I will look very carefully at the 10 points raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and undertake to talk to ministerial colleagues, particularly in the Department of Health, about how we raise public awareness of parental alcohol dependency in a similar way to how we have raised awareness on smoking. I am happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman, along with representatives from many of the excellent organisations that have come together to help him in both a personal and professional capacity to prepare for this debate, so that we can pull together our collective understanding of what is being done and where we continue to fall short.
Much of the work that we are doing on the social work reform agenda, and on how we equip teachers and other educational staff to understand the presentation of children from a family in which alcoholism is a problem, is going to be key to unlocking this taboo that sometimes remains. If we are honest, we all know of someone in our own family or immediate circle of friends, or certainly in our social network, for whom this is a feature in their lives.
We should not pretend that there is an easy way of trying to make changes happen, but, on the back of the right hon. Gentleman’s public push to galvanise the work already being done in many places around the country, we have a real opportunity to ensure that responses are more consistent and that we start to reduce some of the anomalies we see in different local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) said, there should be a much more joined up approach so that families who feel unsupported and children who feel lonely no longer have that as a central feature of their lives. We must use some of the innovation out there to ensure that the work we do in future really does make a difference.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for children of alcoholics.
Community and Voluntary Sector Funding
(8 years, 12 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
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for the community and voluntary sector.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I welcome the presence of the Minister, who will respond to this debate.
Given the value that the charity, community and voluntary sector adds to the communities we represent and the incredible services that it provides to our constituents, such as mine in Bradford West, it is fitting that we debate this important issue as the sector faces difficult and economically challenging times and increasing user need. We are on the verge of another round of Government spending cuts, and in many places the cuts have already done irreparable damage to the community and voluntary sector. There have been many changes over the past five years to grants, commissioning and procurement for small, medium and large charities. Many should have offered a lifeline to vital projects in our constituencies in the face of austerity, but the reality is that they could not.
The previous and current Governments committed to reforming the voluntary and charitable sector and helping it to be buoyant at a time when it was most needed. The big society project translated to commitments made in this House, but in reality little progress was made in communities that saw funding falling, grants drying up, short-term procurement opportunities, increasing costs and plateauing revenue streams. We have seen projects and charities that provide innovative services and important community projects close and others struggle to stay afloat. By and large, the charity sector has tried to adapt to the challenging economic environment, but we should create a culture in which it can thrive and serve, because there are intangible and immeasurable benefits to the services it provides. I believe that all parties recognise that fact, but are the Government giving it due consideration?
On procurement, a recent study by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations on the financial sustainability of the sector showed that since 2009 there has been a £2.3 billion reduction in Government contracts, and that the sector faces a £4.6 billion annual shortfall by 2018-19 in the funding it needs to maintain its current level of service. The simple fact is that the need for charitable services is increasing, as demonstrated by a report published by the Charity Finance Group in December 2014, which showed that more than 70% of charities expect demand to increase. We have to recognise that, if we are to maintain the same level of services, we must take action now to ensure the long-term sustainability of the community and voluntary sector.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On the issue of sustainability and the need for charities, I want to mention two charities in my constituency. First, given that this will be the coldest and longest winter in 40 years, the services that Energy Solutions provides to the community are essential. Secondly, although World AIDS Day is coming up on 1 December, the Community Health Action Trust has had its funding cut, which means that it can no longer serve the community and test people rapidly for HIV, which is on the increase among heterosexuals.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Order. I ask that interventions are interventions, rather than mini-speeches.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) makes a valid point. We are seeing that theme across the country.
The £2.3 billion reduction in Government funding is interesting. It will come through a number of streams, because the third sector has a symbiotic relationship with many Government-funded organisations, not least local councils, whose budgets have been decimated by austerity. However, the wider point is that the Government have been unable to build the third sector’s capacity to apply for more complicated contracts through increasingly complex and larger tendering processes.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. The Government talked about a big society, but they really meant a smaller society. My hon. Friend touched on an important point. A lot of local authorities procure services from the voluntary sector—particularly from citizens advice bureaux, and I am sure from a lot of other organisations. In a time of austerity, people badly need those services. They cannot get legal aid any more for a whole range of issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an injustice perpetrated on society?
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree. I will come on to talk more about the big society—or the failure to have a big society—and what should be done.
The coalition Government and this Government concretely demonstrated their commitment to tendering provisions for the VCS sector when they embraced the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. They have attempted—I use the term loosely—to reform public sector procurement to benefit VCS and social enterprise groups through their open public services approach. However, the reality on the ground is quite different. According to the National Audit Office, income from the Government to deliver contracts decreased by £1 billion in 2012. Its report shows that the biggest private sector contractors’ market share increased, and in 2012 charities lost almost £886 million in contracts, while the largest providers’ income grew by £551 million. That is unacceptable.
Those are not new statistics, and the problems are not new. There has been a lack of solid progress since the 2012 Act was enacted. The Government backtracked and kicked their commitment to transparent tendering into the long grass. They tender contracts that are far too large for the majority of VCS organisations to bid for; they put unrealistic timescales on the bidding process, which works in the favour of the larger private companies; and the calculations of cost value per unit still fail to consider the social value added by VCS organisations. Those issues are magnified by the financial pressure that all VCS organisations are under. Many have adapted and risen to the challenge of maintaining a similar level of service by innovating and raising finance elsewhere. The Government have failed to give due consideration to how charities can build the capacity that will give them the necessary skills to bid for contracts.
There has been a massive shift away from grant funding, which was more discretionary, to contract-based services, which are far more rigid. Without flexibility and financial stability, VCS organisations are unable to innovate—not in their front-line service, but in their capacity to bid for large contracts against private companies. I am extremely interested to hear how the Government will address that capacity shortfall to ensure that those who are doing the best, most valuable work are capable of applying for such contracts.
I used to issue health action zone grants. As a former NHS commissioner, I have seen at first hand how the voluntary and charitable sector developed, and how the Government strangled the ability of smaller organisations to thrive and meet the demand in their communities. Until recently I chaired a large mental health organisation, which, as a large organisation, was in a privileged position. We were able to ensure that we could survive. That is an example of the inequalities that are created by the Government’s stance on voluntary sector funding.
A further issue that must be addressed today is the Government’s longer-term strategy to devolve discretionary business rate exemptions for the VCS sector and charities. As the Minister is aware, there is currently an 80% mandatory business rate relief for charities, and the other 20% relief is provided at the discretion of local councils. Councils are already suffering incredible pressure on their budgets and are struggling to offer the full rate relief that is important to large and small VCS organisations. That 20% can be the difference between keeping services going and their having to close altogether. The situation made difficult by the uncertainty about the future of the rate relief and the expected full devolution of council tax control to councils.
It is essential that we give small charities all possible support so that they can continue to provide services to our constituents. It is imperative that the Government issue a long-term strategy on rate relief. Ideally, they should help councils to offer full rate relief to all charities for the foreseeable future. Given that more of the financial burden has fallen on councils in areas of higher deprivation, such as my constituency, it is not fair that yet again the Government are not supporting the communities that have the most need.
Recently, I was invited to address an event in my constituency organised by the Blenheim Project, which helped local women and their children who were made homeless and vulnerable due to domestic violence. I heard moving testimony and stories from those who had received invaluable support from the project and who, as a result of that help, managed to live not as victims but as active and productive citizens. Breaking the cycle of homelessness is the most cost-effective approach in the long term and has benefits for communities and for the economy as a whole. I heard from one woman who stayed in the project as a young child with her mother after they finally had to leave home. She continued to enjoy security at the project even though it had been taken away from her at home. That young women went to university and is now working and contributing to society. She is just one example from thousands of similar stories about the importance of receiving that much-needed support.
However, the event was not held to celebrate the Blenheim Project moving forward or developing; it was to celebrate the project’s achievements upon its closure due to funding cuts. It was sad, because I know the value and appreciate the benefit that the project added to my constituency and community, reaching places and people that others could not. As someone whose life has been shaped immensely by the voluntary sector, both as a service user when facing difficulties in my own life and when I worked in it as an employee, I am devastated at the loss of the project’s beds. Let me be clear: one bed space literally means the difference between life and death for some women. Where I come from, one death is one too many.
The charity had 37 long years of hard work, supporting hundreds of women and providing exceptionally high-quality support to prevent women and children from becoming permanently homeless. It had proved itself successful, but could not find a sustainable financial platform despite offering a service that others could not, and for a modest sum when all its intangible benefits are considered. If it was not the definition of a public good that we in this House should protect at all costs, what is?
The pressures of the funding cuts brought about by the coalition Government’s austerity measures and increased by this Conservative Government cut to the heart of our communities. They disproportionately affect northern councils that have some of the poorest wards in the country. The funding cuts have propelled councils to rationalise and reconfigure services to meet demand and support vulnerable people, but the impact on service delivery continues to hit the most vulnerable indirectly, and initiatives such as the Blenheim Project are falling victim. The VCS is known to provide high-class services to people and communities who often get missed by mainstream services, but this Government believe that that does not carry a price tag, as we have seen from their so-called big society pronouncements in the past.
The changes in funding, which have required the development of new commissioning and VCS frameworks, have made it impossible for projects such as Blenheim to continue providing the quality support that they know women and children need. The new reality in funding and commissioning arrangements makes many successful small charities unsustainable. Small to medium-sized local charities face challenges due to the drive towards commissioning processes that seek to maximise outputs on the same resources. The tendency for bigger charities to drive down costs as loss leaders in the first instance makes the option of tendering for contracts unsustainable. Smaller charities do not have the resources to invest in future developments, never mind taking on projects as loss leaders as part of a wider strategy. In a statement, the Blenheim Project said:
“Due to pressures in funding Bradford Council can no longer support as many homeless people as before and have drastically reduced both the number of places they will fund and also the level of funding”,
which would no longer be adequate for the services that the project offered. In addition, the council took away the project’s ability
“to assess the needs and risks of the clients”
for itself.
Only a few hundred yards up the road from the Blenheim Project used to be another project, the Manningham Mills Community Association, which has also bitten the dust. Another community has been robbed of a vital resource due to funding cuts and belt tightening. For me, however, there is belt tightening and there is just strangling a community. What the Government are doing is a shameful indictment of how out of touch they are with the communities they are supposed to protect.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a generalisation—it sounds as though the whole of the third sector had disappeared. I met the Powys Association of Voluntary Organisations, my local third sector governing body, just last week at its annual general meeting. Everyone would like more money, but such organisations are striving to succeed and still doing an extremely valuable job. I regret the fact that the hon. Lady is making it sound like the third sector has vanished.
Naz Shah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. Although I agree that the third sector is doing a valuable job and is working hard, if one considers the Tory Government’s proposed £300 million-plus cuts to the Big Lottery Fund, which I will refer to later, that will put my comments in context.
In communities such as my constituency of Bradford West, where more than 26% of children are already living in poverty, the average weekly wage is more than £110 less than the national average. In another ward in my constituency is a specialist project catering for black and minority ethnic women fleeing violence, which would have soon closed due to pressures facing the local council were it not for the intervention of the Big Lottery Fund, the input of which in my community is literally life-changing. Across my great city there are many other examples of the axe falling heavily, and all of them have a few things in common. They are smaller VCS organisations, providing vital services and lifelines to those most in need of support and plugging the gaps where statutory services are not delivering strongly.
The Government are making it harder to secure grants and funding at a time when demand is increasing and capacity is already stretched to maintain current service levels. The top-heavy austerity measures and the slashing of Bradford council’s budgets by almost half by 2020 have led to a short-termist view, wholly created by the Conservative Government. Whereas councils were previously able to take long-term views on VCS funding, the parameters of that work have now been narrowly defined. The money available has been restricted to reduce costs, there has been a drive for efficiency and to obtain ever-increasing best value, and a reduction in unit costs has led to the likes of the Blenheim Project being placed in vulnerable positions. The situation is set to get significantly worse and have an impact on other areas of the VCS and charitable economy.
The Government fail to realise that much of local government, the NHS and the third sector operate in a symbiotic relationship, helping to create a robust mechanism to meet needs across the board. Taking out the third sector or reducing its ability to operate under financial strain will have an impact on the drive to reduce admissions, promote self-care and increase community capacity for home care and the promotion of health. We are only storing up problems for the future. Saving money in that way is a false economy.
Along with the provision that we have lost due to charities such as the Blenheim Project closing, the Bradford district has lost expertise and the ability to reach out to places and groups that need help. The project closed its doors at the end of September 2015 after 37 years of supporting hundreds of vulnerable, homeless women and children. As a result, Bradford has lost jobs and 17 rooms for vulnerable people, and wider community involvement and community development has ended. A successful church community project has closed, leading to the loss of valuable expertise that knew its community exceptionally well. There are many other such cases across Bradford, and the picture is repeated in constituencies across the country. It is not unique to Bradford West.
My final point is about potential cuts to the Big Lottery Fund. We have been hearing reports of a 30% reduction, with the money being used to cover a hole in the finances of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport equating to between £300 million and £320 million a year. If true, that will be devastating to VCS organisations across the entire country. I will use the example of my constituency to illustrate just how damaging the loss of 30% of grant money would be to small organisations, in particular small charitable projects. Since 2014, the fund has commissioned 466 projects in my constituency to the tune of £4.9 million, almost 90% of which were for under £10,000. It is an amazing array of projects, targeting some of the most vulnerable and the most in need. From that alone, we can see how a reduction in grant awards would decimate the small community projects that can have transformational impacts on people’s lives as they often concentrate on specific, niche needs. The Anah Project in Bradford is only there because of the Big Lottery Fund. Furthermore, as I said, we have seen changes to the awarding of grants, a lack of capacity in the VCS to apply for more complex funding and the loss of funding from struggling local councils. In all, plainly, the big society appears to be even more hollow than first feared.
Unlike the Government in their approach to communities such as mine in the north, the Big Lottery Fund does not discriminate. It gives out funding to individual projects, based solely on the value they add and, most importantly, on need. We could face a betrayal not only of the great work that individuals and organisations do in the community with lottery funding, but of the members of the public who elected this Government. Many will feel that the Government are overstepping the mark if they backtrack on the principle of the additionality of lottery money, which has been reiterated time and time again by successive Governments. The money is there for the community, not for this Government or any Government to plug holes in their funding.
I want assurances from the Government that they are considering the long-term implications of their decisions and the pressure that they are putting on the VCS. More has to be done to tackle the inequality in procurement and the manner in which contracts are decided if we hope to be able to retain some of the most valuable and innovative community engagement work across all sectors in the foreseeable future. Charities and voluntary organisations need to be able to plan their funding and projects on a longer-term basis. The Government not only have a responsibility to help build capacity in the third sector through investment, but they also need to give assurances on the unknown costs by making critical decisions, such as on council tax relief for charities. Ultimately, the Chancellor must not use the Big Lottery Fund to act as tape to cover up poor financial planning in central Government. As John Major said, lottery money is from the people for the people.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Given the number of Members who have indicated their wish to speak in the debate, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means I impose a time limit of six minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Moon.
I commend the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for the subject of the debate. I am extremely passionate about it because my constituency has some of the highest rates of volunteering in the country; more than 1,500 voluntary opportunities are being advertised there at the moment. Volunteering is deeply embedded in the fabric of the Wiltshire community. In fact, it is the very glue that binds it, filling the gaps left by the state. Voluntary organisations are essential for those two reasons and I welcome the Government’s support for the sector, although I encourage them to protect and support its work further.
Given a ballooning state, a huge deficit and an ageing population, the truth is that we will not be able to sustain the existing model and will be unable to continue providing all the levels of service that we have now. We will need to look to the voluntary sector for more and more, so it is imperative that we support and strengthen the industry today. In addition, as the hon. Lady said, charities save the state money in the long term.
For example, Wiltshire Mind, which is based in my constituency, receives no Government funding, but even the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust acknowledges the charity’s vital work and how it reduces pressure on services. Alzheimers Support and the Alzheimer’s Society are prime examples of charities that achieve better outcomes than many state-run organisations, because they are specialised in their sector. Volunteer centres act as pivotal hubs, promoting and filling roles, and they often excel at rehabilitation of ex-offenders and back-to-work programmes.
As we all know, the recession has hit the voluntary sector hard; its total income has fallen in real terms every year since 2009-10. That is because of not only the reduction in Government spending, but the reduction in giving—an obvious symptom of recession. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that the rate of giving fell by around 10% during the recession, and it has still not recovered. Individuals are the voluntary sector’s single biggest source of income, hence the impact.
Funding is not the only issue, and that is the point that I want to labour. We also need to encourage volunteering, especially among the young and the elderly. In 2014-15 47% of adults in the country did some form of informal or formal volunteering. Informal volunteering is most prevalent among 26 to 34-year-olds and formal volunteering among the young—those of 25 and under. That means that a huge number of people in the retired sector with time and expertise who could get involved. Volunteering would also help some of them to ward off loneliness and other such attributes.
Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I recognise some of what the hon. Lady is saying, but does she recognise that such volunteering activity requires investment? It does not come for nothing.
Michelle Donelan
Exactly. I am trying to make that point and will continue to, but I am also saying that we can throw money at things, but it is not only a case of money—we must also promote the voluntary sector to ensure that we have the volunteers for tomorrow.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Carers’ organisations also recognise that the issue is not only about funding, but about the freely given caring provided day in, day out by carers to their families up and down the country.
Michelle Donelan
I agree. I am very much involved with the carers’ organisation in my constituency and I completely understand that point.
We need to go further to encourage and enable more people in long-term unemployment to go into volunteering schemes. We already do that, but we need to work more closely with volunteer centres to ensure that it happens more. There is a lot of concern about the loss of benefits to volunteers, so there is much work to do there.
We need to invest to encourage more young people to volunteer as well. Some fantastic work has already been done, such as that of the National Citizen Service. It is important today to focus not only on the negatives, but on the positives. Seventy-five thousand young people have changed their lives and got involved in their communities through the NCS. We should take note of the things that are working as well.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the hon. Lady’s positive view of the NCS and its good work with young people. At the same time we are seeing huge cuts to youth services across local authorities and the NCS works with a fairly small number of young people compared with the great majority who can access mainstream services. Does she not think that the cuts to local authorities also impact on young people’s preventive services?
Michelle Donelan
The cuts to youth services are for a totally different debate, because they are not purely about volunteering. There is a vast variety of youth services depending on the different areas and models involved. There is also the question of replacement: in many areas, including mine, the council has worked closely with the community to offer a replacement service that is the most cost-effective and efficient for the people using it.
In addition, the Government are providing funding for campaigns such as the national Step Up To Serve #iwill campaign, which aims to make social action part of the lives of as many 10 to 20-year-olds as possible. More remains to be done, however, and I am quite shocked that there is still no formal encouragement in respect of the value of getting volunteering into schools, through things such as voluntary placements. We have always had a system of work placements, but there has never been a system of voluntary placements as a formal mechanism in the UK. I have approached my local volunteer centre about the issue, and we are trying to do something with willing schools in my constituency.
We need to change the ethos and encourage more businesses to allow voluntary days, which would build on the Government’s initiative on that. There have been other great investments, which we should not fail to mention, such as Big Society Capital, tax relief for social investment, social impact bonds and £70 million for social investment in the investment and contract readiness fund.
Dawn Butler
In addition, business rate relief for charities is worth £1.7 billion. Does the hon. Lady not think that they should be excluded from the Government’s plans for rate relief? Those plans will hinder charities’ ability to provide services to the community.
Michelle Donelan
That is one thing we could look at, but it is not the only thing, as I shall get on to in the rest of my speech.
More needs to be done and it is time we looked at gift aid in particular. On average, the charity sector loses almost £1 billion a year from people not opting into gift aid. Perhaps we should not only promote it more as a mechanism, so that people understand it, but look at the logistics of having an opt-out instead for the working population. That might be one solution.
When compared with the state, charities are often far better placed to deliver services and value for money, as well as being far more knowledgeable about those services. The charities also provide specialised local knowledge and learning for volunteers. Young people can gain skills and a preparation for life and employment, while older volunteers can impart their own knowledge and reduce the training burden carried by charities. Charities may also reduce demand on the NHS as people stay active and healthier during volunteering. There are thousands of voluntary organisations in Wiltshire that bring in money from inside and outside the county in addition to Government funding.
While central Government may be able to replicate the functions of a local charity in part, that is not sustainable. That also does not take into account the unseen costs of not funding those charities, such as the loss of expert knowledge and the unquantifiable but large wider social benefit that community charities provide. I welcome the Government’s recent initiatives, but I urge them to go further. The reality is that we will need to rely more and more on the voluntary sector in coming years, so it is imperative that we support and promote it today.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I am not sure whether this requires a declaration, but I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on civil society and volunteering, which is administered by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. I put that on the record; I might have got into trouble if I had not.
Six minutes is not a lot of time to talk about this. As it was in 1601 that the Charitable Uses Act came to this House, we have been discussing charities and their development for the past 414 years. In England and Wales, we have got about 180,000 registered charities and there are probably as many again that are not registered. Charities have a combined income of £40.5 billion a year, similar to the figure for 2006. Of that, £13.3 billion is from Government sources, down £1.7 billion since 2010-11, and 83% is from contracts. Many of those points were made most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who spoke magnificently at the start of the debate.
Wherever we stand on the ideological spectrum, we all know that the public sector cuts will hit hard, so I will put in a plea for the charities’ old block grants. I know the history of contracts and the rest of it, but, as well as providing value in terms of simplicity for smaller charities, they also deal with capacity building. The core funding can and should be monitored. Indeed, when I was a manager of a small charity in London, I think I faced a lot more monitoring than Kids Company did for its multi-millions. That should be looked at, because it would enable those charities to develop and grow in funding and capacity.
It is right that controversies and indeed slightly dodgy fundraising practices are looked into, and it is right that we are considering those issues in the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill. I, for one, will welcome the development of a fundraising preference service, but we know that charities need to raise money and always have needed to. We have seen that throughout our history, whether it was Dr Barnardo or those lesser known and less wealthy philanthropists such as those individuals and families who, in Victorian times, ensured that orphaned, destitute and illegitimate children became part of their family. They did not have the money or get the big plaques, but they were part of that bigger society.
To look to the new generation, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) that we must look again at gift aid. I suspect that many of us make direct debits and the like and sign the little gift aid forms in the old-fashioned way. However, there is a new generation out there. Demos, in its “Introducing Generation Citizen” report in 2014, made the point that 13 to 19-year-olds have a real desire to help others through social action. Of course, many younger people do donations by text, so we need philanthropy for a modern age and a new generation of givers. Think, indeed, of Stephen Sutton and how crowdgiving led to more than £3 million for a charity in a year—that is a phenomenal legacy from a phenomenal life. Cancer Research UK’s no make-up selfies raised £2 million for charity and received more than 800,000 donations by text.
We know the history of gift aid and as a society we should be proud of how it has developed and increased, but surely it is time to look at making it automatic for text donation. The Government must look at that. We made the point in the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012—this is not for gift aid, but it is similar—that charities can automatically claim back on a gift from an unknown donor, so I hope that the Minister will look at that.
We are looking at our communities and discussing the charities and community organisations, which I think reflect the diverse aspects of Britain: the different societies; the wealthy philanthropists; the miners’ welfare organisations; the Churches and other faith groups; and a whole series of initiatives.
Let us not forget that the NHS did not start off as a national, state-sponsored health service; it actually began in small communities where people had ideas. When we talk about the divisions between voluntary sector and state and private sector, we forget that often a good idea is piloted in the voluntary sector and people think, “This is good. We will have a bit more of this and then we will do it locally or nationally.” At the heart of the debate, we need to look at funding and where clear problems are caused by the funding cuts, but we need to be innovative and pluralistic and celebrate that work. It is not that we want a big state; what we challenge the Government for is a much bigger society.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and to contribute to the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah)—that was something I would never have said in the previous Parliament, but I can happily say it now—for the thoughtful and welcome debate she has brought to Westminster Hall. This is something that we all care about, because in all of our constituencies we recognise voluntary organisations and charities, some of which are linked to national organisations such as Age UK, and there are also smaller groups that have recognised local need. For example, in my constituency the Debenham Project has come together to support people with dementia and their families. That project is now being used as a pioneer throughout the east of England to show just how communities that have recognised a need can come together and make a real difference for people with dementia.
Before I talk more broadly about the role of businesses in supporting volunteering and the charitable sector, which I do not think has happened to the extent we would like— and I will talk about the legal sector in particular—I want to pick up on some of the points raised in the debate that affect all of our constituencies. Much of the volunteering in Suffolk, and, I am sure, throughout the rest of the country, is freely given. I am sure that no one wants in any way to polarise the debate by saying that the voluntary sector should be a purely funded sector.
I am sure we all recognise the vital contribution in carers’ organisations, village hall committees, scout groups and other groups in the community when time is freely given to support others in need, be they young people needing support with educational causes or the most vulnerable. None of us would want to undermine that ethos in any way. It is important that everyone considers the opportunities in their community to support vital projects and, in particular, to look after the most vulnerable people.
One such example in my constituency is the hour community project in Framlingham for which everyone in the community has given up one hour of their time—whether one hour a week, one hour a month or even less than that—to take an older person who may be living in social isolation shopping, for example, or to provide support to special educational needs children or teachers in a school or to provide time to other people in the community with needs. We should value and cherish that.
That does not always require funding. Of course there is an argument for pump-priming some such projects, as outlined earlier, and providing seedcorn whether through local authorities, central Government or lottery funding to kick-start them, but we should never undermine the importance of encouraging people to volunteer in their communities and give up their time to help those in need and good community causes.
These times of economic austerity have, of course, had a clear impact on charities and voluntary organisations. There has been a reduction in central funding—of course that is the case—and there has been a 10% drop in charitable donations, according to figures from three or four years ago. However, voluntary organisations have opportunities they did not have before to find additional funding, and local commissioners now have greater opportunities to commission services from voluntary and charitable organisations, where appropriate. Has that happened, however, to the extent envisaged in the legislation? Perhaps it has not.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that local charities do very good work. In my constituency, however, small charities have consistently reported problems with public service commissioning, including that contracts are becoming so large that only the largest organisations can bid for them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must take steps to level the playing field so that the charities he is speaking so passionately about, and that I believe so passionately in, can compete?
Dr Poulter
That is an issue, particularly where local authorities look at having block contracts for aspects of social care. That is a real problem, particularly for more—I do not necessarily think this is the correct description—bespoke charities, which provide specialist services. For example, a charity looking after younger people who have had a brain injury may not fall easily within a block contract. The Department for Communities and Local Government could certainly look at providing guidance and support to those who put these contracts out, to make sure that block contracts do not inadvertently get in the way of providing the right services to people with quite specialised needs. That can be a very real problem, which can result from block contracts, because they are inherently larger. The result can be that people with more specialised needs can fall through the gaps. Some of the charities and voluntary organisations providing very good specialist care do not get a look-in on block contracts, because they are not geared up to provide the service required, although they do provide an important service for certain groups in the community. The DCLG may well want to look into what guidance it can offer. Indeed, the Local Government Association also has a role in supporting local authorities to make the right decisions in this area.
The more general point I wanted to get on to relates to the role of big businesses in supporting volunteering. They have done a lot to support links with the armed forces. They have rightly been part of a big drive, with the Government, to support people in having time off to serve with the armed forces. There is also often a synergistic relationship with the voluntary sector, and local businesses can benefit and get good will from the community by allowing staff to have time off to contribute to charitable and other good causes. However, one area that needs attention is the legal sector—
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on securing such an important debate.
I spent many years working in the voluntary sector and as a volunteer. I wish to state that at the start, although it is not a declarable interest. I am deeply concerned about the situation facing the community and voluntary sector—a situation the Government have created. Volunteers and voluntary groups do a truly outstanding job in many of our communities, and they deserve all our support and that of the Government.
Demand for charitable services is increasing. Given the hardship the Government’s austerity agenda is creating, people in our communities will undoubtedly turn to charities and voluntary groups even more in the future for assistance.
In 2010, we heard much from the Prime Minister and the coalition Government about the big society and the role volunteers play in community life. Here we are just five years later, and the Government are pulling the rug out from under many of the charities, community groups and voluntary organisations that make such a valuable contribution to our country.
Recently, I spoke at the annual general meeting of the county voluntary council in my constituency. Voluntary Action Merthyr Tydfil does an outstanding job of supporting voluntary groups, as do many other county voluntary councils. The mood of many of the community groups I met was one of deep concern and worry. Historically, many voluntary organisations have received support—including, importantly, financial support—from local authorities and, in Wales, from the Welsh Government. Given the Tory Government’s austerity agenda, as well as the huge cuts to local authority budgets and, in Wales, to the Welsh Government budget, devolved and local government are finding it increasingly hard to deliver key services, putting at risk their ability to support voluntary and community groups.
Clearly, it is impractical for many charities and voluntary organisations to make a realistic charge for many of the services they provide, because that would, in many cases, put those services out of the reach of the people who need them most. Charities are well used to fundraising and to looking at all opportunities to bring in extra resources, but many will always need some support.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West said, the indication that the Treasury may look to cut the Big Lottery Fund share of national lottery funding from 40% to 25%—a cut of some £300 million—is hugely worrying, and such a cut would have a catastrophic effect on hundreds of voluntary organisations. The Big Lottery Fund is the biggest single funder of voluntary sector organisations, and given that charities are struggling financially, this is not the time for the Government to make matters worse.
Small grants of a few thousand pounds from the Big Lottery Fund are a lifeline to many community groups. Such funding is often the first step for fledgling community groups, such as senior citizens organisations and youth groups. I know of many instances where such grants have given volunteers and community groups a real boost, giving them an incentive to develop their work and to contemplate more ambitious projects, including attracting more volunteers.
Tulip Siddiq
Does my hon. Friend know that half of BLF awards go to organisations with a turnover of less than £25,000? The proposed move would be devastating for community spaces in my constituency, especially youth services, because of their small turnover.
Gerald Jones
I absolutely agree. As I said, that funding is an absolute lifeline for many small community groups that are on the road to developing more ambitious projects. It is unacceptable for the Government to contemplate such a cut to offset Government cuts in other areas. The Minister should confirm that the cut in lottery support will not be used as part of the Government’s deficit reduction plan.
In view of the Government’s apparent attack on the voluntary sector, I am bound to ask what they have against volunteers and voluntary groups. I urge them to acknowledge the role of the voluntary sector and the massive contribution the sector makes to society and to act accordingly. I therefore ask the Minister to advise us whether he will stand up for the sector and stand against this huge cut in the support to the Big Lottery Fund.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
May I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah)? May I also say what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon?
Charities play a vital role in society, and they make a significant economic contribution. The sector generates gross value added of £12 billion per year. The economic value of UK volunteering is estimated at nearly £24 billion. However, given that approximately half of all charities depend on central or local government funding, they expect to be hit particularly hard by any budget reductions over the next five years. Charities will be looking closely at the spending review for details of where funding may become even more challenging. It goes without saying that public service cuts will have a significant knock-on effect on charities.
We have heard a lot about the Big Lottery Fund. To shed some light on the issue, let me add that it is one of 12 distributors of the national lottery’s good causes funding. However, there is a strong indication that Her Majesty’s Treasury is planning to reduce the Big Lottery Fund’s share of national lottery funding from 40% to about 25%. That, arguably, would mean the redirection of funding towards the arts and sports because of DCMS spending reductions. The reduction in the Big Lottery Fund would be £300 million a year. We all recognise the value of the arts, sport and heritage, but support for those causes should not be at the expense of community groups.
The move would hit smaller groups hardest, because 90% of BLF grants are smaller than £10,000. It would particularly affect community projects such as village halls, playgrounds and youth clubs, as well as targeted interventions where there are social problems. Examples are isolated older people, domestic violence and vulnerable children—I could go on, but I think I have made my point. As BLF funds are usually committed years in advance, an immediate reduction in the national lottery’s contribution to it could cause it to close its books to new funding applications for several years.
In my constituency a total of 251 projects have been funded, with a total value of nearly £4 million. In the whole of Swansea 993 projects have received funding, with a total value of £20 million. One of those is an organisation called Hands Up For Down’s, a parent-run group for children with Down’s syndrome and their parents and carers. It is based in Swansea and has been running since May 2014. It simply offers a support network to the parents of children with Down’s syndrome, as well as an opportunity for the youngsters to get together to play freely and socialise. Sian is the mum of Iolo, who uses the project, and she said:
“We are facing many challenges but with the support of Hands up for Downs and the Big Lottery Fund we don’t feel we need to do it alone”.
I hope that the Government will think about all the Iolos and Sians in the country, who benefit from the Big Lottery Fund, when they wield their axe and do whatever they intend to do that will affect voluntary sector funding.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on securing the debate. We have heard excellent and wide-ranging contributions this afternoon, and I very much welcome the debate. It is important that we discuss the issue, since funding for the community and voluntary sector is at a critical juncture. With the Chancellor’s spending review coming tomorrow, I am sure that everyone involved in the sector will wait with bated breath to see what further cuts he has lined up for local government budgets. The continuous budgetary pressure on local government makes it even harder for the voluntary sector to fund its important work. I have seen in my own constituency the tremendous impact that community organisations have and the growing funding challenge that they face because of cuts to Welsh Government budgets that have to be passed on to local authorities.
I spent some time a couple of weeks ago at Grassroots Cardiff, a small community organisation working with the most vulnerable young people in Cardiff Central. It provides advice, support, creative opportunities and training that help young people between the ages of 16 and 25. In a supportive environment, it promotes self-confidence and development to help vulnerable young people avoid homelessness and drug abuse. It also runs a fantastic weekly Asperger’s support group for young people—the only one that is available in Cardiff and the wider region. I have seen the remarkable work that the organisation does and the positive difference it has made to the lives of young people with Asperger’s.
Grassroots works very hard to function within its means, but owing to the cuts it is really struggling. It has lost local authority funding because of UK Government cuts and faces the prospect of being able to offer only a part-time service. That successful organisation, which has been serving the community in Cardiff Central for decades, is under threat. It is desperate for funds. If it asks for funds from local people, who are already stretched with low incomes and a lack of work opportunities, they will give what they can, but it is a struggle.
In the previous Parliament, under the coalition Government, there were tax cuts for the wealthiest in the country—a giveaway to the people who needed it the least. At the same time cuts were made to the local authority funding that supports and delivers voluntary and community sector provision in villages, towns and cities across the UK. The expectation was then, as it will be once again in tomorrow’s spending review, that ordinary working people will have to foot the bill.
Part of the Conservative party manifesto in 2010 and again 2015 was the creation of the big society. One pillar of that was opening up public services and enabling voluntary organisations, charities and social enterprises to compete to offer public services combined with community empowerment, giving local councils and neighbourhoods more power to take decisions and shape their own area. However, under the coalition Government outsourcing took place on an unprecedented scale, and that is continuing under the current Government. The aim was to create a fairer playing field in which charities, social enterprises and private companies could bid for services, but as we have heard in many speeches today, the harsh reality has been private companies’ share growing, while charities and voluntary organisations have lost out completely.
The other pillar of the big society was community empowerment. The idea of that, as I understand it, was for people to be able to select the community projects they wanted to launch. However, because of the swingeing cuts in public sector funding, people are now forced to choose which projects they want to save, rather than the ones they want to launch. I have seen that happen in my constituency. Several voluntary sector organisations, including Carers UK’s Cardiff branch, ABCD Cymru, which works with the disabled black and minority ethnic community, and Cardiff’s Disability Action group, have had to fold altogether, leaving people without the support they desperately needed.
Tulip Siddiq
My hon. Friend has been talking about the notion of the big society. In the more affluent bits of my constituency there is a lot of social capital and invisible capital. The big society has worked there, but does my hon. Friend agree that in the more deprived areas of our constituencies it will not work? We cannot expect people who are choosing between putting the heating on and eating, and whose tax credits are being cut, to volunteer as well and keep up the big society, while the Government crush the roots of local democracy and cut councils’ funding.
Jo Stevens
I agree entirely. It always seems that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who are looked to for giving.
Several colleagues have mentioned the Big Lottery Fund. Since 2010 it has supported 74 projects in my constituency, including a deaf youth summer theatre school, the Somali Integration Society legal and welfare advice pilot project, and the Adamsdown day centre’s “Young At Heart” project. The day centre provides an essential service for elderly people who would otherwise have little or no daily social interaction. Its lottery fund money made the difference this year between being able to stay open or closing its doors for good. Seventy-four projects in Cardiff Central have received more than £3.3 million in funding from the Big Lottery Fund. Not only is that funding worth discussing here; it is something that all of us need to protect. I am sure that all the hon. Members present share that view, and I hope the Government will take note of what has been said today and take action urgently to protect a fantastic, hard-working, critically important sector.
Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Moon. I want to mention that I am vice-chair of the all-party group on civil society and volunteering, along with the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), whom I am delighted to see here today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on securing the debate, and I am delighted to speak for the Scottish National party, which, for the record, I want to congratulate on its resounding victory at the general election.
The subject of the debate is a critical issue for communities across these islands. As my constituency is in Scotland, I am keen for Members from other parts of the UK to hear briefly about differing approaches to supporting the community and volunteering sector. I believe that the approach in Scotland is based on common values, as the voluntary sector seeks to play its part in the civic life of the communities in which it was founded and that it engages with and serves. The relationship between local government and the voluntary sector in Scotland is also extremely important, given the sector’s role in Scotland’s community planning partnerships and in developing all 32 single outcome agreements. If hon. Members do not know what those are, I advise them to look at those interesting documents, which place the sector in a critical and fundamental role in Scotland’s public life.
The challenge we now face as we approach the comprehensive spending review, which has been put well by many Members, is a decision by the UK Government that will reduce the funding for the most local of organisations—critically, through funds such as the Awards for All programme and Investing in Ideas—through funding reductions to the Big Lottery Fund. That fund enables local volunteer-led organisations to deliver support to communities at the coalface of community cohesion.
In Scotland, the Big Lottery Fund awards more than 2,000 new grants every year to organisations ranging from grassroots volunteer-led community groups to major charities. Its work is funded through an average annual budget in Scotland of £70 million, and it has recently come to the end of a five-year strategy. The fund has existing financial commitments to more than 3,000 projects in Scotland. Last year, more than 116,000 people in Scotland took part in small grassroots projects funded by the fund. Nearly 2,500 jobs, mainly in registered charities and community organisations, are at least partly funded by grants from the Big Lottery Fund, almost 780 of which are full-time posts solely supported by those grants. As we approach the comprehensive spending review, our grave fear is of a possible reduction in that funding. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to deny the possibility of a reduction of national lottery funding to the Big Lottery Fund from 50% of moneys raised to 25%.
Without doubt, the community and voluntary sector in Scotland and the rest of the UK makes a direct impact on the economy; in Scotland, that impact is worth nearly £2.5 billion. Our Government in Edinburgh are committed to working—I should add, with cross-party support—with sector groups to create a fairer and socially just Scotland. That is why they have created a new third sector forum this year, bringing together representatives to consider ideas about the sector’s future. The Scottish Government are determined to work with the sector to remove the barriers that prevent people from reaching their full potential—critically, with regard to volunteering. The voluntary sector is crucial to achieving social justice, and its organisations are closing the gap in employment and health inequalities and addressing the significant problems of poverty in my own constituency of West Dunbartonshire and across the country. I will mention just a few specifically: the Independent Resource Centre, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary; West Dunbartonshire CAB; the Vale of Leven autism group; and the Ben View centre.
Importantly, in February this year, the Scottish Government announced £1.1 million of investment for a new volunteering support fund, which will, we hope, train and recruit 3,000 volunteers from disadvantaged backgrounds to work at 110 projects across Scotland, seeking to ensure equal access to civic participation. That is on top of an increase in investment in the community and volunteering sector in Scotland, from 2001 to at least 2011, from £2.1 billion to £4.5 billion.
In Scotland, 1.3 million volunteers undertake roles in every community and in all sectors, bringing significant individual and community benefit, as volunteering does across the rest of the UK. Volunteers have a critical role in leading change and empowering our communities. We now have the opportunity, throughout the UK, for growth in volunteering through a renewal that connects with the passions, interests and motivations of individuals and brings about public value.
Volunteering provides enormous value to society in general and significant benefits to the wellbeing of those who participate. In Scotland alone, it is estimated that volunteers contribute £2.6 billion to the economy. More recent findings about the direct impact of volunteering on individual wellbeing indicate exceptional benefits. Any cut to the Big Lottery Fund in the comprehensive spending review will undermine the very source of our community and voluntary sector—the volunteers by whom so much is delivered for so little.
As is the case in the rest of the UK, the majority of these organisations in Scotland are run by volunteers, in service delivery roles as well as management roles, with volunteer committee members and, on occasion, charitable trustees. The sector has considerable experience and understanding of working with individuals and communities in developing solutions, and thus mobilising the skills and knowledge of communities. That co-production model for solutions is essential to successful prevention, and I am sure that hon. Members here today would like to see similar models in their own constituencies. While the UK Government are poised to cut funding, the Scottish Government are investing in the enterprise ready fund, which distributed nearly £6 million between 2013 and 2015 to help maintain, develop and grow the sector. I am sure other Members will also want to look at the model of the social entrepreneurs fund.
The Big Lottery Fund in Scotland currently supports more than 2,000 organisations. It uses the good causes funding it receives from national lottery ticket sales to provide £75 million of funding every year to projects that tackle a wide range of issues including poverty, loneliness and ill health. The jobs partly funded by the fund are also a critical issue. There has been speculation that cash will be taken from the lottery fund to mitigate cuts to arts and sports resulting from the departmental budget cuts to be announced in the comprehensive spending review. Similar tactics were used for the Olympics in 2012, with a massive £638 million “borrowed” by the Government, a sum that has yet to be paid back.
The national lottery is independent of the United Kingdom Government, and that Government should not be raiding the Big Lottery Fund to subsidise their departmental spending cuts. The UK Government’s austerity agenda is focused on cutting public services and social security, no matter the cost to people. It is clear that any cuts to the Big Lottery Fund will have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable in our society and will exacerbate the impact of other cuts across our communities.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and my privilege to respond as shadow Minister for Civil Society. It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) who set out clearly and powerfully the role of the community and voluntary sector in Scottish civil society and its impact on the Scottish economy. He also talked about the Big Lottery Fund, which I will discuss in some detail. I share his deeply held concerns.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for calling this extremely important and timely debate. She set out eloquently and passionately the challenges faced by the community and voluntary sector. She also gave a heartfelt example of how crucial services such as the Blenheim Project in her constituency are to people in need, in particular at times of crisis.
Tomorrow, the Chancellor will set out his departmental spending priorities. It is his chance to set out his vision for the kind of society and economy he wants to build. The question for us today is whether that vision will be one that recognises and values the role that the community and voluntary sector can play in building a safe, healthy, decent and prosperous society. Many Members have set out fantastic examples of great work done by civil society organisations in their local areas, as well as the challenges such organisations face.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) mentioned Mind. Many of us would want to pay tribute to the great work that Mind does, not least in my own constituency, where it has been dealing with some of the repercussions of the huge job losses we have faced. She made a really important point about the preventive role it plays in reducing pressure on our public services. That also made me think of the importance of investment to prevent costs further down the line in public services. She also mentioned gift aid. There is an important message for the Government on that: they should look again at whether they might loosen the eligibility criteria for the small donations scheme, which so far has generated only £21 million, not the £105 million expected. That might be something that they could explore further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who is chair of the all-party group on civil society and volunteering, spoke eloquently about the importance of core funding. Any of us who have had experience of working with the voluntary and community sector will know how important that funding is to enable voluntary organisations to keep the lights on and keep functioning, when often grant money for specific projects is more readily available. She also talked about the importance of new technology. There are some really interesting issues there that we can look to take forward.
The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) made some important points about businesses giving up time for people to volunteer. It is important always to look at the contribution that everyone can make, not just the professionals within the community and voluntary sector. We recognise the importance of diversity of funding and of capacity within the sector; to my mind, however, we must not lessen the importance of the role of partnership with public services and the support of local authorities and central Government, as they are often absolutely critical to funding projects that would not necessarily get private sector support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) talked eloquently about the impact of cuts on the devolved Administrations and on local government, and the effect that had on local communities in his area. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) paid tribute to Hands Up For Down’s, which sounds like a really excellent organisation doing great work. She also mentioned the impact of cuts to the Big Lottery Fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) talked eloquently about Open Public Services, which ranks alongside the big society as a flawed philosophy, set out by the Government five years ago. It has seen many contracts gobbled up by the private sector and larger charities, to the detriment of smaller charities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) also pointed out. I thank all my colleagues for their important contributions to the debate.
The worry for many of our hard-working community and voluntary sector volunteers and professionals, as well as those who rely on their vital services, is whether the Chancellor will tomorrow hasten his assault on the sector, which has already seen the big society agenda disappear like a mirage, wiped out by a wave of cuts over the past five years. Figures I have received from the NCVO show the sector is already receiving £1.7 billion less of its income from Government than it was in 2010-11, and the number of grants to the sector from Government has halved since 2002. The charity sector faces a shortfall of £4.6 billion by 2018-19 on current spending trajectories. Charities and community groups have been hit by a triple whammy of cuts to their grants and income; a reduction in local government support, with partnering public services facing their own drastic cuts, leading many of them to cut preventive services; and having to deal with a large rise in demand.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West mentioned, according to the Charity Finance Group, 70% of charities expect demand for their services to continue to rise in the next 12 months. In 2009, the figure was half that, with only 36% of charities thinking demand would rise. Charities know they are picking up the consequences of this Government’s economic and social policy failures. They are often catching the people who have fallen through the gaps and are too often failed by the state. Charity and community groups are fearful of tomorrow’s statement. They are asking whether tomorrow will see a spending review that puts the final nail in the big society coffin and shows that, like the Tories of the past, this is a Government who believe in neither the state nor society.
Nowhere is that threat more clearly exposed than in the expected cuts to the Big Lottery Fund, as many of my colleagues have rightly set out. The Big Lottery Fund has been a vital ingredient in helping many community organisations to deliver vital services in the local community and transform lives, particularly in our most deprived areas. The rigour that the Big Lottery Fund applies to its funding process ensures that charities can prove they work to change people’s lives—a rigour that has been sadly lacking from the Government’s own direct distribution of money to charities, as highlighted by the Kids Company saga.
If it is true that the Chancellor intends to take around £320 million from the Big Lottery Fund and redirect it to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to spend on arts and sports, it is a shameful act of misappropriation. The Chancellor should not be raiding the people’s lottery to plug gaps in his departmental spending, to try to compensate for the total failure of his long-term economic plan. The British people donate these funds when they buy lottery tickets in good faith that the money will go to good causes—village halls, youth clubs, playgrounds, domestic violence support, care for older people and those with disabilities, and the many groups we have heard about this afternoon. Ninety per cent. of Big Lottery Fund grants are less than £10,000, and they are a lifeline to small local groups, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West set out, so this act will hit the smallest charities doing the most important work in the most deprived areas.
As the former Conservative Prime Minister John Major recently said, lottery money was to be from the people, for the people. The guiding principle has always been that lottery money adds to, rather than replaces, public funding. Is the Minister going to allow that principle to be shredded to compensate for his Government’s failure to protect and support our public services? Is he aware that some 3,800 charities are still waiting for the repayment of £425 million that was taken from the Big Lottery Fund to help pay for the 2012 Olympics? Depriving vulnerable people and communities of support during this difficult time is outrageous and is contrary to the very nature of what players of the lottery expect will happen with their contributions. I urge the Minister to ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to think again.
In conclusion, I hope the Minister will give some reassurance to the community and voluntary sector ahead of tomorrow that the Government still value the contributions it makes to our society. In 2009, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition said he wanted to
“set free the voluntary sector and social enterprises to deal with the…problems that blight so many of our communities”.
Far from setting them free, this Government are starving them of funds and forcing many of them, as we have heard today, out of operation. I urge the Minister to fight for the future of a sector that is vital to the strength, health and dignity of our society.
The Minister without Portfolio (Robert Halfon)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on securing the debate and on her election; there are not many Labour MPs I raise a glass for when they get elected. I know that in her maiden speech she spoke about social action in terms of food banks. Although, of course, I disagree with her on some points, she spoke thoughtfully and with passion, and I will try to answer some of her points.
The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said she was worried about mentioning that she chairs the all-party group on civil society and volunteering; I think that is a badge of pride. She made some thoughtful remarks about gift aid, which she will know was worth £1.2 billion to charities last year. The Government have launched Charities Online, an online system that makes it simpler and faster to claim gift aid. The innovation in giving fund has provided around £10 million to develop ideas that have the potential to create a step change in the giving of time and money, including, as she suggested, crowdfunding platforms and other innovative forms of technology.
The hon. Member for Bradford West spoke about procurement, an issue that has come up not only recently but over many years. I have spoken on the record in the past, when I was on the Back Benches, about the Tesco charities—in other words, the bigger charities that get the bigger slices of the pie. She will know that the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, supported by the Government and passed by Parliament, requires public service commissioners to consider social value whenever considering procurements in their area. The Cabinet Office has led the successful Commissioning Academy to instil best practice across the public sector, as well as delivering special commercial masterclasses to charities to support them to bid. There is also a local sustainability fund of £20 million that supports grassroots charities, to ensure they have a secure future.
The hon. Member for Bradford West is right that charities currently get business rates relief of up to 80% if a property is used for charitable purposes. Many local councils top up certain reliefs, offering 100% relief in order to give businesses and charities extra help, and business rates relief helps charities up and down the country. With the Government’s tax changes, employers, including charities, will have their national insurance bills cut by £1,000 from April next year.
The Big Lottery Fund has come up on a number of occasions. I have to confess that I have not seen inside the Chancellor’s lunchbox, but I urge hon. Members to wait 24 hours and hold their horses, so that we can see what happens. I cannot comment on funding, particularly because of the spending review, but I want to talk about three things—funding we have provided for civil society, what we have done to improve civil society, and our ongoing work.
It was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan). I cannot get away from her Facebook page, because it has one post after another of her community activism, looking after her local community and doing exactly the kinds of thing we have talked about today. I know that her work is acknowledged by her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) talked about volunteering, which I hope to come on to later.
I am a passionate believer in big society and always have been. I have always believed that social capital is as important as economic capital, that social entrepreneurs are as important as economic entrepreneurs and that people power is as important as state power. That is what big society means to me, and that is what big society means to the Government.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that people capital and social capital, which he rightly points to, will not provide a rape crisis counselling service for children, no matter how much he wishes they might? The state once provided that. The Big Lottery Fund then went on to provide it, and the Chancellor is potentially about to take it away.
Robert Halfon
As I said, I suggest the hon. Lady holds her horses and waits to see what happens in 24 hours. I will talk about what we have already done to fund civil society and big society in a moment.
The Government recognise that individuals are looking beyond the state and want to help friends, family, their community and their local services. People are becoming far more community-minded and are asking not what their community can do for them, but what they can do for their community. Millions give their time, energy and expertise to help others, and they put service above self. I am wearing a Heart 4 Harlow badge, which is from a social action project created by faith communities in my constituency. They work together to do social action and to help our town. This social action—this people power—is the foundation of the bigger and stronger society that we all desire.
It is no surprise that the Charities Aid Foundation found that the UK is the most generous nation in Europe. That means that the public are giving twice, which it is important to note, both in their taxes and personal donations. With all the talk of funding, it is also worth noting that taxpayers are giving about £13 billion a year to charities up and down our country—remember, that is not Government money, but taxpayers’ money.
We should also note that five years ago, our country was broken. We had experienced the deepest recession in living memory and the deficit between public spending and the Government’s revenue was unsustainable. Unemployment had risen to record levels and household debt was higher than many of us would agree is sensible. The societal issues that stemmed from those circumstances meant that public services and civil society both faced an incredible challenge—one of increasing demand, but without the ability easily to invest increased resources to meet it.
Anna Turley
If the Minister is setting out the challenges and saying that there is a consequence for public services and the big society, we are now five years on and the crisis is even greater for the community and voluntary sector. Is that not a consequence of the last five years of economic policy as well?
Robert Halfon
As I said, the taxpayer is spending £13 billion a year, which is a sizeable chunk of money, on charities.
I turn to the Government’s achievement over the last years in pursuit of this vision. There is, for example, the community organisers programme, which is training more than 6,500 organisers to work in hundreds of cities, towns and villages. Community organisers are not about replacing existing jobs or services; they are about people power, giving social entrepreneurs, charity workers and volunteers the real tools to help themselves. One example is the work of community organiser, Tania Swanson, in Clacton in Essex. She works with the Rural Community Council of Essex to assist with projects on affordable housing, energy efficiency and community farming, as well as on many other community initiatives.
The big society has meant the establishment of the Centre for Social Action, too, which has seen an investment of around £70 million of real money from the Cabinet Office, commissioners, local authorities, philanthropists and other partners into 215 social action projects in England, working alongside and helping public services. Just as the Government have liberated business entrepreneurs from red tape and regulation, so the big society has worked to free charities, voluntary groups and social entrepreneurs from red tape. There has been £200 million of investment to help charities transform themselves to be more effective. We have seen the creation of the world’s first social investment bank, Big Society Capital. A prime example of that, and one I know about, is the £825,000 invested into the Essex social impact bond to help vulnerable young people avoid care or custody and stay at home with their families.
To me, perhaps one of the most exciting and forward-looking of the big society projects is the National Citizen Service, which was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. It gives young people a real chance in life and a real experience of community ethos, social action and important skills that they will have for life. Over 5 million hours of volunteering has been given by NCS participants to their local communities; that is a whole generation for whom social action has become the norm, not the exception. Ensuring that future generations are more socially minded is key to the work of the National Citizen Service. A lot of work has been done to help young people. In my constituency of Harlow, we have the Young Concern Trust, which does an enormous amount to support disadvantaged young people.
I said earlier that the big society was about social capital, social entrepreneurship and people power, and that that is the continued mission of the Government over the next five years.
Robert Halfon
I will not—I am very sorry, but I have to get on.
So what does this mean in practice? It means a continued investment in our charities, continued support for social action, and continued backing for giving and philanthropy. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich talked about volunteering. We believe that the planned entitlement will help build stronger communities and a stronger economy by creating a more motivated and productive workforce. It has been shown that people who volunteer also have significantly higher levels of life satisfaction. Many businesses across the country already run great volunteering programmes that empower their staff and help build stronger communities. During this Parliament, the Government plan to make that an entitlement for those working in the public sector and large companies.
We are also working to make social investment an integral part of the investment landscape. Earlier this year, Access—the new £100 million social investment foundation—was launched. By helping organisations to become investment-ready, Access will be critical to our continued efforts to ensure social investment is working for more organisations and is accessible by more people. We, as a Government, can use social investment to deliver a more just society.
Alongside social investment, Government are rapidly extending the scope and reach of social impact bonds to tackle youth unemployment, mental health, homelessness and children in care. Through funding for initiatives such as the Centre for Social Impact Bonds and the Social Outcomes Fund, we can help to build a strong, resilient sector.
So what do we plan for this Parliament? What do we want to see over the next five years? We want to see increased levels of social action and volunteering, creating stronger, more resilient and empowered communities, and increased resources going into the civil society sector through more giving and philanthropy, as well as more social investment enabling investors who want to use their money to have a profound social impact. We want more businesses actively building social capital as well as economic capital—helping to build a more compassionate economy—and, of course, better and more responsive public services, ensuring that they work hand in hand with the expertise, humanity, and dignity of the big society of community and volunteers.
Dr Poulter
On volunteering, I wonder whether the Minister may be able to look at—and perhaps do some work with the Law Society on—pro bono work from solicitors. A lot of big law firms do not give their lawyers time off to perform pro bono work. The only way we can change that is not through dealing with firms, but by putting a requirement on lawyers through the Law Society which then, in turn, would put pressure on firms to act. Will he look at working with the Law Society to encourage more pro bono work?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. I am lucky in my constituency, because I have a pro bono lawyer who very kindly helps us with difficult legal cases with my constituents. I am sure that the Minister for Civil Society will look at that issue.
I firmly believe that we are on the brink of something special in our country: where we continue to create millions of jobs and apprenticeships, where public services offer more choice and are focused on the security that everybody needs, but most importantly, where the big society flourishes like never before, so that even in difficult economic circumstances, with the strong backing of this Government, millions of social entrepreneurs, community-minded individuals, charity workers and others give all they can to make our country a better place to live.
African Lion Numbers
(8 years, 12 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
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the decline in African lion numbers.
It is a pleasure, Mr Hamilton, to serve under your chairmanship. It is good to have the opportunity to draw attention to the continuing and worrying decline in the number of African lions. This is by no means the first such debate in this Chamber. Almost precisely five years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) secured one during which he identified the pressures on the species that have accumulated over several decades.
In his debate, my hon. Friend pointed out that in the 1960s it was estimated that some 200,000 lions roamed the African continent. At the time of his debate, the numbers had declined to some 20,000. However, more recent estimates indicate that the number of lions has now declined to fewer than 15,000—by any standards, that is worrying. In central and western Africa, only a few scattered groups remain. It is estimated that in all Africa only six significant populations are left: in Tanzania, northern Botswana and the Kruger national park in South Africa. Data released in June by the International Union for Conservation of Nature revealed that the African lion population has undergone a reduction of approximately 43% over the past 21 years. The IUCN has accordingly classified the species overall as vulnerable.
The more detailed picture is mixed. In South Africa, the lion is categorised as of least concern on the IUCN’s red list, although that assessment is a matter of some dispute. In west Africa, the lion meets the criteria for “critically endangered”. The IUCN reports that lions have been extirpated in 12 African countries and it is suspected that there has been recent extirpation in another four.
A recent paper in the proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences comments that the
“rapid disappearance of lions suggests a major trophic downgrading of African ecosystems with the lion no longer playing a pivotal role as apex predator.”
There are various reasons for the decline in African lion numbers. The IUCN reports that the most important is indiscriminate killing in defence of human life and livestock, habitat loss and prey-based depletion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight pointed out five years ago, lion habitat is increasingly being given over to agriculture to feed rapidly growing human populations. He said:
“Where lions come into contact with humans, history has long shown that lions must make way.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 315WH.]
The change in land use means that the lion is being progressively excluded from its ancient habitats. A paper published in the proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences suggests that intensively managed locations
“in southern Africa may soon supersede the savannah landscapes in east Africa as the most successful sites for lion conservation”.
Certainly in southern Africa, lion population numbers are under less threat, but that is due in part to the reintroduction of lions not into the wild as we would know it, but into small, intensively-managed and funded reserves. I suggest that it is a matter of the utmost sadness that so important a creature as the African lion should be consigned to a future life behind fences.
The word “iconic” is one of the most over-used but it can be justly applied to the lion. It is indeed the noblest of creatures, featuring prominently in the iconography of many nations over many centuries; nowhere is that more the case than here in the Palace of Westminster, where carved stone lions are among the most prominent decorative features of this great building. Indeed, all of us in this Chamber today passed a stone lion seated at the foot of the stairs just outside the Jubilee Room.
In no country on earth is the lion more revered than here in Britain. Indeed, it is our national symbol, featuring everywhere from our royal arms to the door knocker of No. 10 Downing Street. Our national rugby side is named after it. Three lions appear on the English football shirt and, going one better, four lions appear on the standard of the Prince of Wales. The red lion is featured on the Scottish standard and perhaps best known of all are the four Landseer lions that guard the monument to our national hero, Nelson, in Trafalgar Square.
The lion is important to us in Britain and I believe that we as a nation can and should do more to safeguard its future. For example, given the declining trend in lion numbers, it is astonishing that the despicable sport of hunting lions for trophies is still allowed. No other species in such worrying decline has been allowed to suffer additional mortality for commercial purposes. A particular concern is that trophy hunting targets male lions, a very small part of the lion population.
Mr Jones
I was saying that a particular concern is that trophy hunting targets male lions—a very small part of the lion population. Targeting male lions has had significant consequences for lion populations, because lions are social animals. In addition, new males that take over the pride of a dead lion will resort to infanticide—killing the cubs of the former dominant male. The rapid replacement of male lions in prides, caused by excessive trophy hunting, will therefore result in negative reproductive rates among lion populations, hastening the process of decline.
Of course, the trophy hunting of lions is a practice that continues overseas, beyond the reach even of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, Britain is in a pivotal position internationally. It is an important member of the European Union, the Commonwealth and international conservation bodies such as the convention on international trade in endangered species—CITES. I believe that Britain should be exerting its influence to help to reduce the level of sport hunting that goes on in Africa.
Sport hunting achieved international attention, not to mention notoriety, earlier this year with the shooting in Zimbabwe of Cecil the lion. Cecil was one of the best known lions in Africa. He had been studied by Oxford University scientists as part of a project that had run since 1999. He had an ugly and distressing death: he was lured out of the reserve in which he lived, shot with a bow and arrow, stalked for a further 40 hours and then killed by a dentist from Minnesota who was armed with a rifle. Cecil was then skinned and his head was removed as a trophy. The dentist in question has been on the receiving end of much international opprobrium since that incident. I mention it now not to add to his already considerable discomfiture, but to draw attention to what can only be described as a sordid industry that is affecting the viability of the species, while causing huge individual distress to these beautiful creatures.
The Cecil episode illuminated the dark side of trophy hunting. It also gave the lie to the often repeated suggestion that trophy hunting somehow contributes to sustaining the species. If trophy hunting is indeed sustainable, why do the operators of trophy hunts resort to illegal activities such as luring a lion out of a game reserve? If their activities are indeed sustainable, the organisers’ concessions should be brimming with lions, but the fact is that they are not.
The truth is that trophy hunting is a nasty, despicable business that contributes to the depletion of lion numbers. I believe that ideally it should be stopped and that our Government could do much more to help to stop it. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to call on the British representative on CITES to help to end the promotion of the concept of “sustainable” trophy hunting. That concept has been promoted for more than two decades, but there is nothing to show for it in terms of lion conservation.
I also urge the Government to engage more actively in preventing the further decline of African lions and to help to put in place strictly scientifically based conservation programmes. An early step should be the funding of an independent and impartial census that will for the first time establish precisely what lion populations remain, so that we can assess more accurately the true scale of the problem.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. The World Wide Fund for Nature predicts that between 30% and 50% of all species will be heading towards extinction by 2050. Does my right hon Friend agree with me and the other members of the all-party group on endangered species that the international community urgently needs to take steps to safeguard wildlife and push for greater co-operation to secure habitats, stop poachers and end the illegal wildlife trade?
Mr Jones
I agree entirely. This is an international issue and it requires international co-ordination. While I am referring to my hon. Friend, I should congratulate him on being the chair of the newly formed all-party group on endangered species. That group was long overdue for establishment, and I am glad to see him as its chair.
Wildlife tourism accounts for more than 10% of GDP in some African lion range states that still allow trophy hunting. The Government should be explaining that a lion can be shot only once with a rifle, but many thousands of times with a camera. In the long term, photographic tourism is much more beneficial both to the economies of those African states and to lion numbers.
We should also bear down on the import of lion trophies by banning it. Australia recently imposed such a ban, the first in the world, and I am delighted to say that last week France followed suit. We in Britain should not lag behind.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to a very serious issue. He has painted a necessarily bleak picture. I agree with him that conservation is very important, and trophy hunting should be banned. Does he agree that organisations such as AfriCat, which has worked for 25 years in Namibia with the local population to sustain and grow the lion population, show us the way we should be going? Does he agree that we need to see more such organisations and fewer attempts to reduce the lion population through hunting?
Mr Jones
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are a number of effective charities, many of them British-based, and I shall refer to another one later.
I would like to mention the loathsome practice of the so-called canned hunting of lions, which is practised mainly in South Africa. Lions are reared from tiny cubs by paying volunteers who are recruited by agencies, some of which are based here in the United Kingdom. The volunteers believe that they are contributing to the conservation of the species.
As the cubs grow, they are made available to be petted by visitors and even rented out as accessories at wedding ceremonies. As they grow further, they are used for lion-walking safaris, which are priced at about $200 per participant. When they become too large and dangerous, they are placed in enclosures to be visited by the paying public as though in a properly managed zoo. When they attain the right size, they are offered to trophy hunters to be shot in enclosures at a price of up to $50,000. Finally in this chain of profitable exploitation, their bones are exported to the far east where they are used in traditional Chinese medicine. That is the most disgraceful and revolting abuse of an important and beautiful creature, and it was extensively revealed in a recent film, “Blood Lions”. British trophy hunters participate in that disgusting practice, and I believe that the Government should at least ensure that they are prevented from returning to this country with the spoils of their activities.
Finally, may I commend the activities of the British charity LionAid, which has done much to help focus international attention on the crisis that threatens to wipe out this important species? Christine MacSween and Dr Pieter Kat of LionAid are both here today, and I thank them both for the help that they have given me in preparing for this debate. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) has been able to attend the debate, and I again wish him well in his new role as chair of the all-party group on endangered species.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what the British Government propose to do to help to conserve this important species, which is so dear to the hearts of the British people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) for raising this incredibly important issue. Lions matter to us, both in themselves and as a symbol of natural and ecological challenges throughout Africa. They matter in themselves because they are probably the most dramatic, charismatic, impressive and splendid animals that we have inherited in the world. They matter in terms of conservation more generally because the issues that affect them are very similar to those that affect elephants, rhinos and other wildlife across Africa. I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the issue as a way of getting us to think about it, and because, to some extent, lions have been underrated in comparison with other animals in recent studies on conservation and extinction.
The central question regarding lions recently has been about the decline in their numbers. Conducting scientific analyses of lion numbers is challenging and there has been a lot of controversy about how many lions we have, but there is absolutely no doubt among members of the scientific community that the number of lions has declined. Whether we have 37,000 or 23,000 lions, and whether or not the decline has been exactly 43%, there is absolutely no doubt that we had far more lions 20 years ago and 50 years ago than we have today.
The primary reason for the decline in lion numbers, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, is the loss of habitat. Lions’ habitat, above all, has to accommodate the large range that these predators require and the prey on which they feed. The expansion of human activities has had a major impact on lions’ habitat. Since humans emerged in the very centre of lion territory, they have found ways to live alongside lions. Central to Maasai culture is the way in which people think about living alongside lions. Over the past 50 to 60 years, however, communities that plant crops and try to keep stock in those areas have found it increasingly challenging to live alongside lions.
As a result, lions live predominantly in protected areas, where there are severe restrictions on what humans can do. Such areas fall into two categories. The first category is national parks, which are the ideal place to locate lions. The Serengeti contains incredible examples of the combination of an ideal habitat for lions with one of the great migratory spectacles of the world—with, of course, a serious income from eco-tourism and photography. The second category is protected hunting areas, which account for about 650,000 sq km of territory. In other words, an area about three times the size of England is devoted to hunting areas for lions.
My right hon. Friend is pushing, quite rightly, for what seems to be the ideal solution, which is to convert those hunting areas into national parks. If that happened, the income in those areas would come from tourism and they would not experience the significant problems of conservation and animal welfare that have been associated with hunting. That would seem to be the ideal situation.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Tanzania. I pay tribute to the Tanzanian Government for categorising and gazetting so many additional thousands of square kilometres as national parks over many years.
Rory Stewart
I will pick up on that issue, because it relates exactly to our current position. The Tanzanian Government are a good example. Just under half the lions in the world live in Tanzania, in areas that are many times the size of Wales. The Tanzanian Government face a series of serious challenges. Approximately 15% of the population have access to any form of electricity, fewer than that have access to sewerage, and many are living on incomes of $1.50 a day. During my lifetime, the population of Tanzania is likely to increase from 10 million when I was born to 160 million by the time I am 70, if I am lucky enough to live that long. Such an increase imposes huge pressures on the protected areas that we depend on for lion habitats.
To return to my argument, the main challenge is not what will happen to the national parks, although there are challenges facing the national parks, such as fragmentation, incursion, poaching and disease—particularly canine-born disease, which has been mapped by Craig Packer in the Serengeti. The question we need to ask is what should be done with the hunting areas. The ideal solution would be to convert them into national parks, and there have been experiments in that direction—a famous ecologist recently took over a hunting licence, established a lodge and tried to run it as an eco-tourism area. The question is whether that is what African Governments would be likely to do with those areas if hunting were removed.
We have two case studies to look at. The first, which has been much discussed, is Kenya, where hunting was banned in the 1970s. It is very difficult to get a good scientific base on Kenya, because the Kenyan population and the pressure on land are so high that is difficult to get reliable indications. The big case study that we need to look at is Botswana. Botswana has now banned lion hunting and will be the litmus test of whether the previous hunting areas will now be protected—indeed, the President and the Minister for Environment, Wildlife and Tourism are heavily committed to protecting those areas—or whether, with a change in Government, the pressure, particularly from the cattle industry, will mean that in three, five, seven or ten years’ time, that land is given over to farmland instead of being protected as national parks. That is relevant because it is predominantly because of farming practices and human population pressure that lions are now largely constrained to areas such as Tanzania and southern Kenya, and have been lost across a great deal of west Africa. That has been the major reason for the decline in African lion populations across the continent. Botswana will be a key litmus test.
Andy Slaughter
The Minister mentions the obvious conflict between farming and lion habitats. The AfriCat project, to which I referred, is about indigenous populations accommodating lions—learning to live alongside them and learning which livestock can be protected—so that the two can live together in one world. The project, which I recommend, is called “Conservation Through Education”. I also say, as a plug, that AfriCat is being sponsored as part of “Giving Tuesday”, which the Government support very much.
Rory Stewart
That is an important point. This is not a black and white issue, nor an either/or. There are very good projects of exactly that sort. In addition to the project to which the hon. Gentlemanrefers, DEFRA has worked with the University of Oxford’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit—WildCRU. It has recently done an extraordinary project, which has seen a decline of nearly 50% in predation of lions by communities using some of the measures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Such measures include radio collaring of lions so that communities can be alerted to the proximity of lions; the use of donkeys and dogs to alert people; better stock management techniques; and compensation for the loss of stock to lions. All those need to be part of the panoply of measures taken to ensure that human populations and lion populations continue to live happily together. They must absolutely be taken on board, and that will be one of the challenges. It is one of the things that people have been looking closely at in Kenya, and on which we can make more improvements across the board.
In the end, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) implied, and indeed as my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West stated, these are issues predominantly for African countries. The challenge for the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States is, above all, to conserve lion populations. What we should be doing—the end for all of us to bear in mind—is trying to ensure that we end up with a stable, serious, resilient lion population in 25, 50, 100 and 500 years’ time. The question of the means to that end is a massive scientific controversy. George Schaller and Craig Packer have weighed in, and Andrew Loveridge and David Macdonald from Oxford University have contributed a great deal on the subject.
For DEFRA, trophy hunting is a serious issue. We have to ensure that when hunting takes place, at the very least it does not involve the kind of activities that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West mentioned. Therefore, I use this opportunity to state that the Government will ban the importation of trophies into Britain unless we see very significant improvements in what is happening in Africa. We will look closely at key indicators, including the age of the lions involved—the latest scientific research pushes for that to be over six. As an interim measure, we will look closely at quotas and at international verification.
The Government have already moved to take Benin and Ethiopia off the list of countries from which we are prepared to import lion trophies, and we will be moving against Zambia and Mozambique. We are working with our European Union and American partners to make it very clear that, unless there is a significant improvement in the performance of the hunting industry and of those countries, this Government will move to ban lion trophies.
Mr David Jones
I am pleased to hear that announcement. Will the Minister go a little further and give some indication as to over how long a period this assessment will take place?
Rory Stewart
As the Minister, I would like this to happen in a short timeframe. I am looking at something in the order of two years, but we need to pin that down. I want to ensure that we work closely with the academic experts and the African countries. The only way in which conservation will work is by bringing African countries with us. It will not work by me pontificating, or by alienating populations including a Tanzanian population that has many problems. However, I am talking about something of that level. We need to set a deadline, have clear indicators and to say, “If we haven’t achieved our objectives by that date, we will ban the importation of trophies.” The key is not only the United Kingdom and Europe but the United States. We have to bring the United States with us. The number of licensed trophies that came into Britain last year was two. The difference will happen at an international level, and we have to work with Europe and the United States.
In the meantime, I am proud that DEFRA continues to fund serious projects through the Darwin initiative and the illegal wildlife trade challenge fund in order to provide for the protection of lions. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West for securing the debate, and I thank LionAid for its work in raising the issue in our consciousness. I look forward to continuing this serious, scientific discussion to achieve what we all want—the preservation of lions.
Question put and agreed to.
Fuel Poverty
(8 years, 12 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
Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)
Before we start the debate, I have a brief announcement. A digital debate has taken place ahead of today’s debate on fuel poverty. Mr Speaker has granted a derogation to allow the use of electronic devices in the Public Gallery for the duration of the debate—although there do not seem to be many people in the Public Gallery. Devices should be silent and photos must not be taken.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fuel poverty.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. The independent charity National Energy Action estimates that two thirds of working parents will not meet their energy costs. Alarmingly, it has discovered that 67% of people with disabilities are already signalling struggles. Tomorrow, the Chancellor will set out Government proposals for spending and there is an opportunity to take action on poverty. There are large opportunities—big things that can be done—and other straightforward measures that the UK Government can take forward to support those under pressure and to reduce costs.
Fuel poverty is a thief. It creeps into homes virtually unnoticed. It steals into people’s lives, begins taking people’s health, starts stripping them of their dignity and forces them to make choices that none of us would want to face. It makes its mark over years and months, often with the victim unaware of its progress in the first instance until the bills start hitting the mat.
People expect to be able to switch on the lights. If we find our house is getting cold, we want that cold vanquished. People should not be living in uncomfortable houses but, at first, they try to get by. They see whether they can cope. They make do. They make changes to the way they run things, and they make choices. They might turn the heating down or use it a little less; they might put on some more clothes. They will do more with their household budget to try to do what they can. They basically try to manage the impossible, but that becomes harder as next month rolls around and they have to go again, so they make choices about what groceries they buy, what they get for their children and what clothes they wear. Another bill hits the mat, and the worry starts to bed in and the sleepless nights take effect, and then the dreaded red bills start arriving and dignity starts to be stripped away.
The cycle of mental and physical deterioration caused by fuel poverty starts to work on people’s health. Children in the cold have issues with concentration; it affects their homework and, of course, their future chances in life. Children are also at risk of respiratory problems. Many hon. Members present will have knocked on doors during the election campaign to speak to people who are fighting fuel poverty in damp houses and who complain about their children being unwell, but it affects adolescents, too. Many mental health problems, once the contributing factors are stripped out, can be accounted for by fuel poverty. I was surprised by a statistic from National Energy Action that fuel poverty is a bigger killer than road accidents, alcohol and drug misuse combined.
The nations of the UK are split into 14 electricity regions, but in the highlands in my constituency of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, and across other nearby constituencies, our consumers are having to face electricity tariff charges of 2p to 6p a unit more than people elsewhere. There are parts of the highlands where fuel poverty has hit 70%. Electricity is charged at a premium in the coldest and darkest places. We are told that the cost of transmitting power makes electricity more expensive for people in the highlands, which is a terrible irony in a place with great renewable energy resource and a history of energy expertise. Of course, there is enormous renewable energy potential not only throughout Scotland but throughout the UK and Europe.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a valid point. Would it not be better to address fuel poverty by having a strategic overview of the electricity system? That would mean a fairer transmission charging system in the national grid that allows further renewable energy in the area about which he is talking. Does he share my concern that electricity poverty can only get worse following the deal to sign the Hinkley Point C agreement with a £92.50 per megawatt-hour strike rate, which is twice the market rate, with Government plans for more nuclear power stations to come?
Drew Hendry
I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a clear problem. Later, I will outline more measures that I believe could be taken in addition to the ones he rightly points out.
The highlands and islands pay more to produce electricity because of the way in which the system is currently set up, and residents pay more to use electricity, which is hardly a great story; it is definitely not a plan for people. The UK Government have spoken warm words about fuel poverty, yet families still sit freezing at home. The inaction is cold comfort to those facing such difficulties. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we need a new national pricing structure that is fair to people across those areas where the hardest conditions are faced. That solution must be based not on robbing Peter to pay Paul but on something that is fair across the piece. We need to consider something that does not just shift the problem from one place to another. The issue should be addressed.
Fuel poverty is not unique to the highlands and islands, and the constituents of many hon. Members in Scotland and across the rest of the UK face similar issues. National Energy Action, which I quoted earlier, estimates that 4.5 million people are facing fuel poverty. The austerity agenda being pushed forward by the UK Government will further hit people on low incomes, which will have the combined effect of ensuring that those struggling the most with poverty and fuel poverty face the coldest cuts. The proposed cuts to tax credits and the changes to social security have the potential to drive fuel poverty to catastrophic levels. Of the people who are already struggling, and nearly half have been struggling for more than a year, only 12%—there is a big communication job to be done—have told their energy supplier and only 5% have sought advice from a supporting organisation.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s policy of encouraging customers to switch is completely useless for many of my constituents, as it is for many of his constituents? In some parts of my constituency 80% of local tenants are on dynamically teleswitched all-electric systems, which can be provided by only one fuel supplier. That, coupled with the 2p per kilowatt-hour surcharge, demonstrates that we need a real and practical solution for those in fuel poverty in rural areas of Scotland.
Drew Hendry
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need a more equitable solution that takes people out of situations in which they have limited choice, or no choice at all. Later, I hope to propose at least a partial solution for the future, but we need action now, too. That must be taken on board. As I said, fuel poverty is not unique to people in the highlands and islands. In the past year, a third of those who are already struggling have skipped a meal to try to afford their bills; 20% are suffering from stress or mental health issues because of fuel poverty; and 40% are struggling with other essential bills.
As the Chair mentioned, I took part in an openDemocracy forum yesterday with MoneySavingExpert.com. The issues raised in that forum, and in subsequent emails to me, were common with those of my constituents in many cases. Highlanders are mostly off the gas grid, which they have in common with some 4 million households across the UK. If people are unable to gain access to the grid, they have to rely on alternative energy sources, including heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas, electricity and solid fuels. The average cost of heating a three-bedroom house with heating oil is circa 50% higher than the UK average; those using LPG pay 100% more on average than those with mains gas. There is limited opportunity to switch to other alternatives. In Scotland, people living off the gas grid are more than twice as likely to be living in fuel poverty as those with mains gas.
The Scottish Government have put in £0.5 billion since 2009 to introduce a raft of fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes. Uniquely, they have brought into being the Scottish rural taskforce, with which I recently had the pleasure to interact, to find ways of making it easier and more affordable for people in rural and remote areas of Scotland to heat their homes. In 2015-16, an unprecedented £119 million has been allocated to fuel poverty and energy efficiency measures, split between advice and support services for householders through the “home energy Scotland” network and a variety of home energy efficiency programmes—HEEPs. Since 2008, nearly one in three of all households has had energy efficiency measures put in place. The Scottish Government have done more to help than the UK Government and other devolved Administrations, with Energy Action Scotland’s report from 2013-14 showing that the average energy savings are £36.48 in Scotland, £31.31 in Wales, £27.55 in Northern Ireland, and £3.52 in England.
There are some issues that could be addressed. For a start, the off-grid energy sector is not covered by Ofgem or the energy ombudsman, which is a deficit that could very easily be rectified. As my hon. Friends have mentioned, there should be a fairer pricing structure across the UK that removes the inequality and prevents people from being charged more in the coldest and darkest areas.
Measures could be taken on prepayment meters, which routinely charge people more than other billing methods. The forthcoming roll-out of smart meters offers an opportunity to give homeowners and constituents meaningful advice about how to use them, and the UK Government should also consider ensuring people can switch seamlessly from one supplier to another through the smart meter, without having to make an application. It should happen automatically to give people the lowest possible tariff. Wholesale prices should be passed on immediately by the energy companies to consumers as fuel savings. There should not be a delay.
A ComRes poll to be published tomorrow for the No Cold Homes campaign showed that 81% of people think that the UK Government should do more on fuel poverty, and 82% of people surveyed believe that the energy sector should do more. Tomorrow, the Chancellor will have an opportunity to take measures to increase household incomes by abandoning tax credit cuts. Austerity is not working for people. The cost of poverty through austerity is more misery. The solution to poverty is not to push those closest to the edge into further crisis. It is time to dump the failed dogma of austerity and turn to a path that focuses on the outcome of a fairer and healthier society.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Hamilton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing it. He has four places to represent; I just have the one.
I apologise for having to leave. I have something else to go to, so I will not be here to hear the Minister, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), reply. She and I have a strong relationship in the House; she spoke at a party meeting and dinner of mine back home when she was a lowly Back Bencher. We have participated in many debates in this House, and it is always good to come along to another. I would love to hear her reply, but I will read it in Hansard tomorrow. I know that it will be positive and responsive to what we are saying and asking for.
I am concerned that in this day and age, people across our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the fifth largest economy in the world, are unable to heat their homes, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said in his introduction. I hope that all hon. Members present—and those who wanted to attend but could not, or have had to go and could not share their concerns—look forward to identifying the best way forward. The hon. Gentleman concluded his introduction with some ideas about how we can do that better. It is important that we have not just complaints but solutions; it is always good, and much more constructive, to have a solution when bringing forward a problem.
Despite the fact that it has been an issue for a number of years now, fuel poverty continues to grow across our nation. The population in my constituency, and indeed across the whole United Kingdom, is ageing. Inaction on this issue will only allow the negative trend to continue. The time for action is now. We can all talk about protecting the most vulnerable in our society—and we should, because it is important—but we need action as well as words. The proof of any pudding is in the eating. Clearly, given that fuel poverty is rising across this country, it has been all talk and not enough action.
The time for action is now, and I hope that it starts today. Average electricity costs in Northern Ireland are 15% higher than on the mainland, so we know only too well the consequences of fuel poverty. We have the highest levels of fuel poverty in the United Kingdom; the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister estimates that up to 42% of Northern Irish households—believe it or not, those are the figures—experience fuel poverty. It is a massive issue. No matter how hard we try, this debate will not adequately reflect that 42%, a rate 13% higher than in Wales and a further 27% than in England.
Of course, regional circumstances go some way towards explaining the disparity, such as the electricity prices that I mentioned earlier and a higher dependence on oil for heating due to an underdeveloped natural gas network. There have been some good steps forward on the natural gas network. I supported the announcement in the summertime by one of the gas companies that there would be gas in Ballygowan, Saintfield and Ballynahinch in my constituency. That is good news. It has not been for want of asking—people have been asking for it for five, six and even seven years—but it is good that the gas network is at least advancing through my constituency, to give people another option. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said in his speech, options are not available, because there is no competition. We need that as well.
As I have said, regional circumstances across the country will dictate people’s fuel situation. That is just one. Measures such as the winter fuel allowance and payments to alleviate fuel poverty are well and good—we have used such methods in Northern Ireland to help those in need, and it has been a positive factor—but the fact remains that although they might help people get through the winter, they do not address the problem. We must address it in the long term.
Competition in electricity supplies has brought the price down for some who are able to switch, but for some people it is not as simple as having an alternative. Changing sometimes involves a cost factor that many cannot make. They cannot absorb that financial cost to move over to a different rate. I would be interested to hear, if not directly then by reading it tomorrow, what the Minister thinks can be done to enable those on low incomes to transfer from one energy source to another.
We need investment in the appropriate infrastructure so that regional disparities are reduced and the costs for those in more expensive regions are reduced. Action in Northern Ireland on fuel poverty has focused primarily on improving energy efficiency in homes and enhancing the quality of insulation and heating systems. Just last Thursday, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister during questions what was being done to help those in park homes, for instance, who need help on efficiency. She answered my question, and was helpful in her response, but many people in park homes are in the 55 to 80 age bracket. They are people who need heat more.
Maybe something could be targeted specifically at those in park homes, so they could take advantage of it to improve their energy efficiency. Quality insulation could be installed in many homes, and heating systems upgraded. Boiler systems have been done in Northern Ireland, and I am sure they could be done elsewhere. I know that similar approaches have been used here on the mainland. We should continue to pursue such approaches where they work, but fuel poverty is still increasing across the country, even after the drop in oil prices, and the population is ageing. Those are the factors that we must consider.
We need to step up more than we have in the past. I am not being critical of anyone, Mr Hamilton; you know that that is not my way of doing things. However, I am keen to hear how the Minister and her Department can help the people who most need it right now. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for giving me the chance to participate this debate and to highlight the issues in Northern Ireland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me repeat an announcement that I made before those in the Public Gallery arrived; it is directed towards them. A digital debate has taken place ahead of this debate, and Mr Speaker has granted a derogation to allow the use of electronic devices in the Public Gallery for the duration of this debate. Devices should be silent, and photos must not be taken.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton, and to take part in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—I think that I have pronounced his constituency correctly—on securing it and on bringing a human element to the discussion. That is what we are all interested in: making a positive difference and improving the human condition. That is, I hope, the primary objective of Members on all sides of this Chamber. It is also very much at the heart, and in the spirit, of what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said in his opening remarks. It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who picked up on that theme and focused the debate firmly on the need to look after our most vulnerable constituents.
In the last Parliament, we had debates on fuel poverty but we often got bogged down in definitions, which was sometimes helpful but sometimes unhelpful. There has been some difference historically across the United Kingdom, between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, on how fuel poverty is defined. Generally, it is when more than 10% of someone’s income is spent on an adequate heating regime, but there has been some concern about how to define a “heating regime”. I believe that has led to a more complex formula, based on the Hills review, which will now be put in place generally to define what is meant by fuel poverty.
So far in this debate, we have not got bogged down in the exact definition of fuel poverty—if we had been, it would have detracted from the point because we are talking about the living conditions and the social circumstances of some of our most vulnerable constituents: people with mental illness, pensioners on fixed incomes and, very often, people who are unemployed. We are also talking about people who live in what is often some of the most challenging housing, in that it lacks good insulation and good home energy efficiency measures. Much of that is in the private rented sector; the housing of many people living in fuel poverty is from the private rented sector. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address that issue in her remarks.
However, it is worth highlighting that we have made some progress in addressing fuel poverty. The figures that I will cite are for England. As of 2013, the huge number of 2.35 million households in England were regarded as being in fuel poverty. Nevertheless, that is a fall from the number for 2010, which was 2.49 million. So progress has been made in reducing the number of households in fuel poverty, and that progress is welcome.
Commendable improvements have been put in place thanks to Government initiatives to improve energy efficiency across the country, with 3.8 million lofts and 2.1 million cavities being insulated through Government schemes since March 2010. The Government have a right to be proud of that record, but clearly there is still a lot more to do. In that context, we should recognise that there are 6 million households with a low income that have an energy efficiency of band D or lower, but as of July 2015 only 1.6 million energy efficiency measures had been installed in about 1.3 million of those homes. There are still many more homes in fuel poverty that we need to help, and many more people in those homes who need help to reduce their energy bills and to ensure that they can make ends meet.
I will touch briefly on the green deal, because the concept was a good one. However, the green deal was difficult to understand and often difficult to communicate. In helping people to tackle high energy bills, perhaps one of the issues—there may be lessons to be learned from Scotland in this regard—was that local authorities were not as proactively engaged in the process of delivering the green deal as they were in the delivery of more successful schemes, nor as proactive as local authorities in Scotland were in the delivery of the green deal. Perhaps we should reflect on that when we consider how we can support measures for households in fuel poverty in the future. Nevertheless, the concept behind the green deal was good.
Where are we now? A commendable initiative has been put in place. I believe that by 2018 rented homes will need to have energy performance certificates of band E or better, which will place a strong requirement on landlords to improve the energy efficiency of their properties and help to improve some of the least well insulated homes. Of course, that will also help the people living in those homes to reduce their home energy bills.
There is clearly a requirement on Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government to work collaboratively with the Minister who is here today and support her in ensuring that this important initiative, which will help to better insulate some of the worst insulated homes, is enforced, and so that DCLG puts pressure on local councils, which I believe can keep the income from any fines imposed as a result of the initiative, to enforce fines on landlords who do not comply with this requirement. This initiative can make a real difference to some of the most fuel-poor homes in the country.
We also have to encourage a more active engagement, perhaps through citizens advice bureaux and other organisations, from energy consumers who live in poorer homes. Notwithstanding the good point of information made about some of the challenges in highland and island homes, we know that the consumers who are more engaged with energy switching on the internet, often more affluent than other consumers, have often benefited from the energy market. However, there has been a challenge in ensuring that market competition reaches and benefits some of the people in fuel-poor homes and some of the most vulnerable consumers.
I wonder what the Minister’s thoughts are about addressing that issue, and whether there may be some initiatives that her Department is considering to support and work with the CAB or other organisations to take this process forward. The energy market can work and deliver lower bills for consumers, but we know that it has not worked effectively and efficiently for the most vulnerable consumers. I am sure that we would all like to see that situation change and that there are mechanisms to achieve that change. Partnership with local authorities, as well as with the CAB and other voluntary organisations, may well be a way of better engaging consumers and helping to deliver the benefits of the energy market to the most vulnerable in our society.
Finally, I will speak briefly on the issue of rural communities, which was outlined very articulately in earlier contributions about highland and island communities—some of the most rural communities in the United Kingdom. However, there are also many constituencies from Cornwall to Suffolk to Lincolnshire—indeed, throughout the United Kingdom—that have remote rural energy consumers. Those consumers are often off the gas grid and reliant on other mechanisms to heat their homes.
In particular, there is a challenge for those consumers who rely on oil; I believe that 8% of consumers in rural areas use oil to heat their homes. The price of kerosene has dropped recently, which has been beneficial for those consumers, but we know that there are huge fluctuations in the cost of heating homes through oil and kerosene. I would be grateful to hear my hon. Friend the Minister’s comments about how we can support those consumers who rely on oil and off-grid consumers in general. Perhaps we could examine the issue of biofuels and consider how its use can be better supported in the years ahead.
There are some positive things: fewer households in England were suffering fuel poverty in 2013 compared with 2010. However, there are still a number of issues to consider, which are related to how we can better engage and better support vulnerable consumers, particularly in rural and remote areas. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister’s response to the debate.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), which is the neighbouring constituency to mine, for securing this important debate. It is important, as other hon. Members have said, with millions of households around the United Kingdom being affected by fuel poverty. As I look around Westminster Hall on the day when the Scottish National party has its Supply day and a number of SNP Members are heavily engaged in the main Chamber, I am glad to say that there are seven SNP MPs here out of a total of 12 MPs. One has to ask the question, “Where is the Labour party?” It is missing from the debate in Scotland, having let the people of Scotland down, and its MPs cannot even be bothered to discuss this important subject, which affects constituents throughout the rest of the UK. It is no wonder that the people of Scotland have fallen out of love with the Labour party in our country.
I will deal specifically with fuel poverty in the highlands and islands. I am grateful to Changeworks, which has estimated the percentage of households in fuel poverty in that region. It bands each locality in the highlands into groups, and by its calculations there is no district in my constituency that has less than 47.9% of households in fuel poverty. In a number of districts, fuel poverty is evident in at least 73.5% of households. The Highland Council states that the context is that
“the Highlands and Islands of Scotland experience the harshest climatic conditions in the UK and record levels of fuel poverty”—
levels that are unprecedented. It goes on to say that
“there is far greater, area-wide dependence on the use of electricity for heating as well as lighting but the standard unit price charged is 2p a kw/hr more than in most other parts of the UK and 6p and more for the various ‘economy’ tariffs on offer”—
a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey made earlier. The council continues:
“On top of all this there is also a far greater reliance in off-gas areas on using domestic heating oil and solid fuel which pushes up household heating costs further still.”
As someone who lives in a rural area, I can say that it is one thing to rely on electricity coming through the grid, but having to check the oil tank frequently and ensure that there are adequate supplies of solid fuel is a different matter. According to the council:
“As a result, domestic energy bills in off-gas areas are, on average, around £1000 more per annum than the £1369 pa dual fuel national average (2014)”—
that is the cost of living in many of our rural areas, and wage levels in rural areas are often considerably lower than in more affluent parts of the country. It continues:
“To cap it all, customers on prepayment meters (often the least well off) not only have to pay additional standing charges but also discover that their notional right to change to a cheaper electricity supplier has become impracticable.”
Those statistics should shame us all.
Let us put the highlands and islands in context with the rest of Scotland. The fuel poverty level in Scotland in 2013 was 39% of households. A key driver for the rate of fuel poverty has been the rise in fuel prices. The fuel poverty rate for 2013 would have been only about 11% if fuel prices had risen in line with inflation between 2002 and 2013.
One of the most fundamental questions that we must ask the Minister is: why do we have to accept that there are 14 regional energy markets in the UK, with consumers in the highlands and islands, who are some of the greatest users of energy in this country, paying that premium of 2p per kilowatt-hour? We must have a universal market throughout the UK. If it is good enough for postage stamps, we should have one for electricity distribution too, and that is in the gift of the current Government. I asked the Secretary of State a written question to that effect not so long ago, and I was amazed that the response was that consumers in other parts of the country would have to pay more. The point that that answer seems to ignore is that such a market would introduce fairness, and no more would consumers in the highlands and islands be discriminated against by a Government who want to penalise them for living there.
That is not acceptable, and it must end—it should end tomorrow. Why do folk in my constituency have to accept higher rates of fuel poverty? The Government can act, must act and should act, and they should do it now. Why do the Government not invest in greater measures to deliver effective insulation and ensure that we can cut energy bills and fuel poverty? We can find the money for Trident, but not to allow folk to live in properly insulated, warm, fuel-efficient homes.
Alan Brown
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We all came out of the Trident debate this afternoon disappointed by the vote. Home efficiency is a serious matter. Home efficiency measures bring people out of fuel poverty, but they have the added effect of wider benefits, because less energy usage drives down the market cost. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should rethink their strategy regarding the £12 billion subsidy they are creating for the right to buy? That money would be better invested directly in new build housing and home efficiency schemes for existing owners, which would also help our constituents by driving down market costs, and the Barnet consequential would allow the Scottish Government to continue their excellent work.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I must contrast the Government’s performance and behaviour with that of the Scottish Government on house building and home insulation over the past few years. It really is about time that the Government in Westminster stepped up to the plate. In light of the upcoming climate change talks, we have a responsibility to cut our energy consumption as far as possible, and we can do that if we invest more in insulation.
Research by Turn2us graphically shows the kind of challenges that those in fuel poverty face. The research found that one in two low-income households struggle to afford their energy costs, despite being in work. Those are people who will be disadvantaged by the cuts to tax credits that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned. Turn2us states:
“Amongst the hardest hit are people with disabilities, with over two in three (67%) reporting their struggles, and families, with almost two-thirds of working parents (65%) unable to meet these costs. Worryingly, of those households who are struggling with energy costs, nearly half (48%) have done so for more than a year”—
this is a long-term, not a short-term, problem. Turn2us continues:
“The knock-on effect is severe, with a third (33%) forced to skip meals and over a fifth (21%) experiencing stress and other mental health problems.”
Is it a price that we as a civilised society are prepared to pay, that people in this country have to make the choice between food and fuel? There is something wrong with our country if that is the case.
Some of the comments made by people who participated in the Turn2us survey are stark. They include, “The bills are killing me, sometimes I have to contemplate paying all the rent or heating my home”; “There are many pensioners like myself who don’t qualify for any help but still have to decide whether to eat or heat”; “We have stress, debt, arguments and a low mood at home”; “Starve or freeze? Either way you get ill and can’t work, eat or pay any bills”; “No lights, only candles, only hoover once a week, only use washing machine once a week, no heating, meals that cook quickly.” Those are the consequences of the high levels of fuel poverty we suffer from in this country.
The Scottish Government have used their powers to intervene to mitigate some of the effects of rising energy costs, but it has been the failure of Westminster, and of the regulator, to properly protect consumers that has led to marked deterioration in the level of fuel poverty. The Scottish Government are committed to tackling fuel poverty head on and ensuring that everyone in Scotland lives in a home that is warm and affordable to heat. However, those measures are undermined by austerity made in Westminster and delivered by a Conservative Government who are having such a huge impact on low and medium-income earners. That goes to the heart of the issue. There is evidence that families have to make the choice between heating and feeding.
There is not just a moral and ethical impact of that but a cost to society, with increased health costs as a consequence of the mental health issues that arise. Also, children are being sent to school in less than ideal circumstances because of family pressures, and our young people are not flourishing to the extent they should, which increases the burden to close the attainment gap. That is the social cost of fuel poverty, and the Government in Westminster have to accept responsibility for it. The proposed cuts to tax credits and other welfare cuts have caused concern that low-income, hard-working households’ finances could be harder hit. The Government must change tack in the autumn statement tomorrow.
Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)
I am afraid that we have no time for other contributions from Back Benchers. May I ask the Scottish National party spokesperson and the Opposition spokesperson to keep their remarks to about five minutes, so that the Minister can have the remaining 10 minutes?
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
On behalf of all the speakers, I thank you, Mr Hamilton, for your excellent chairmanship.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing this debate on such a critical issue. I also thank other hon. Members for their excellent contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) reminded us about the long-term high strike price of nuclear for Hinkley Point—twice the current price of electricity—and its impact on those in and on the cusp of fuel poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) highlighted particular issues for rural communities.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, talked about finding fuel poverty solutions. I completely agree with his call for less talk and more action on this critical issue, especially in relation to competition. I thank the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), particularly for his reminder of our humanitarian obligations to address the issue. He urged us not to get bogged down in the associated definitions and technicalities. He focused on England and the green deal, which is an excellent initiative. He reminded us that high rural charges apply in England as well as in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for his excellent contribution. He reminded us of the importance of this debate and commended the attendance of all, especially the high number of SNP Members who are here. Shockingly, there is no community in his constituency where fewer than 50% of people are affected by fuel poverty. I pause to let that point strike home. He also made key points about the smaller supplier choice in the remotest areas of Britain, on the blatant discrimination that exists and on the stark choice between eating and heat.
As I have stated in other debates, recent stats show that about 40% of households in Scotland are considered to be living in fuel poverty. I am sure all Members agree that that is unacceptable. The statistics for the highlands are shocking, and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing them to my attention. The statistics for Lochaber in particular are dreadful. We have also seen the impact of fuel poverty across the rest of the UK. That is nothing to be proud of, and in this decade of austerity, it will only get worse.
Fuel poverty means more than simply not being able to keep the heating on. Adolescents living in cold homes are five times more likely to have multiple mental health problems than adolescents living in warm homes. In addition, children living in cold homes are more than twice as likely to have respiratory problems as those living in warm homes. Critically, fuel poverty has a negative impact on the educational attainment and emotional wellbeing of children. It means that household income, which could otherwise be used to purchase healthy, nutritious food, goes on energy bills. The combination of mental and physical health problems, poor diet, emotional turmoil and diminished educational attainment caused by fuel poverty is a recipe for condemning people to the dreadful cycle of poverty. In essence, they are poor and paying for it. Some 40% of households in Scotland face the consequences of fuel poverty every winter, and winters are particularly harsh in Scotland.
Fuel poverty is the result of a combination of low household income, fuel costs and the poor energy efficiency of homes. Several of my colleagues and other Members have mentioned that. The contributing factors can be addressed in a number of practical ways, and that in turn will help to prevent fuel poverty. Low household income can be tackled through a number of measures. A living wage for everyone in work, not those just over the age of 25, would allow young individuals and families to afford the rising costs of fuel. Unfortunately, the cuts to working tax credit and child tax credit recently announced by the Conservative Government—so many households rely upon those credits to be able to pay for basic necessities—will only further punish lower-income households and put even more at risk of fuel poverty. We must provide a fair deal for hard-working individuals and families and not force them to bear the cost of letting large corporations and the financial sector skip taxes. Notably, the tariffs for pay-as-you-go phones, which are used most by those in fuel poverty, are some of the highest on the market. We need to address that, because the market certainly is not and has no intention of doing so.
The energy market is dominated by the big six, and the days of standing by while they address their needs over those of consumers and make massive profits while so many suffer from fuel poverty must be brought to an end. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, it is about less talk and more action. The Competition and Markets Authority recently found that energy consumers were collectively being overcharged by £1.2 billion a year. Following that finding, I asked the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what steps would be taken to amend policy in response to the overpayment. The Government’s response was that no action would be taken until December 2015, well into winter and months after the finding was published. Meanwhile, ScottishPower quadrupled its profits last year—
Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we have only 15 minutes left for two more contributions.
Philip Boswell
I thank you for the reminder, Mr Hamilton. I will bring my remarks swiftly to a close.
Finally, there is huge scope for the Government to assist in making homes more energy-efficient, but we have yet to see that come to fruition. The green deal has already been stopped, and the reduction in the budget of the Department of Energy and Climate Change means that programmes such as the green deal home improvement fund, solar power subsidies and feed-in tariffs will be cut.
I welcome all the contributions made in today’s debate. The need to tackle fuel poverty robustly is self-evident and compelling to everyone in the Chamber. I am delighted to hear Members from all parts of the House agreeing with that. There are real people behind the fuel poverty statistics, and that must not be forgotten. They have to make the difficult decision between buying food and heating their homes, and in a modern, developed society, the fact that 40% of Scots face that dilemma every winter is a disgrace. Swift, meaningful action must be taken.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to make my debut appearance as a Front Bencher in a Westminster Hall debate under your enlightened chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing this important debate. I am sure this will be the first of many such debates with the Minister, and I look forward to the many more to come.
Today’s discussion has been detailed, impassioned and generally of an excellent standard. Going through some of the points made by Members, someone—I cannot remember who—mentioned that fuel poverty is like a thief in the night, which is dramatic, but spot on. Another Member mentioned that fuel poverty is a bigger killer than all road traffic accidents and drug abuse combined, which is a startling fact. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) talked about the human component, which is something I want to come on to in my brief speech. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, spoke of how his constituents are struggling in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made some good points. He spoke about how 73% of households in some communities are experiencing some form of fuel poverty. He also touched on some things that I will not have a chance to talk about in my speech, such as the impact that energy companies across the UK are having on fuel poverty and how we begin to tackle that. I will press on, because time is brief.
In preparing for today’s debate and listening to the detail of Members’ contributions, I have been struck by just how easy it is to get sucked into the statistics and detail of fuel poverty. Other Members have touched on that. The detail is an essential component of understanding not only the scale of the problem, and ultimately the sheer depth of Government failure on the issue, but critically the resources required to turn the problem around. Before we get into the stats, however, I remind the Chamber that behind every percentile, every missed target figure and every set of depressingly high numbers, there is a fellow human being. Perhaps they are one of the 25,000 people expected to die this winter as a result of living in a cold home. Perhaps they are one of the over-65s, an age group from which one person is expected to die every seven minutes this winter because of fuel poverty. Perhaps they are someone who is disabled and unable to get out of the house, reduced to living in one or perhaps two rooms for the duration of the winter because of the fear of racking up excessively high heating bills. Perhaps they are one of the 1.5 million children across the UK living in fuel poverty. Maybe they are one of David Cameron’s strivers, working as hard as they can but still struggling to heat their home. We know that more than half of the 2 million households living in fuel poverty have someone in work. This is the reality behind the statistics, and they are the people who this winter will pay a heavy price for the Government’s failure to tackle the issue in any meaningful way.
Let us look at these statistics that are a badge of shame for any Government who claim to look out for the interests of all our citizens, poor or affluent. We know that up to a third of excess winter mortality, the figures for which come out tomorrow, are the result of people living in fuel poverty. Last year’s rates saw excess winter mortality at 31,000 in England and Wales, up 29% from the previous year. We should absorb that figure—up 29%. Figures for Scotland are up by 4.1% to 19,908. In Northern Ireland the raw numbers were low, but the increase was large: a rise of 12.7%. That equates to 559 people who are no longer here with us because of fuel poverty.
Yet after five years of being in government, can the Minister tell us, hand on heart, that tomorrow’s figures will go down and not up, and that their fuel poverty strategy is at last beginning to make progress? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response when she addresses the debate shortly. However, I am afraid that, whatever is said, the statistics and the facts will speak for themselves.
In the Department of Energy and Climate Change annual statistics report, the number of households in fuel poverty in England was estimated in 2013 at 2.35 million, or—in other words—one in 10 homes where there was a choice between heating or eating. And it is not set to improve any time soon. In fact, by DECC’s own measure, the next set of figures is expected to show an increase in fuel-poor households. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the abject failure to get to grips with the plight of those in private sector rented accommodation. Compared with other housing sectors, the private rented sector has the highest proportion, at 9.1%, of the most energy inefficient homes—those in bands F and G.
We know the Government’s stated goal in tackling this was that as many private rented homes as is “reasonably practicable” will be rated band C for energy efficiency by 2030. But between 2010 and 2013, this was achieved for only 70,000 fuel-poor households, leaving 95% still to be improved. It does not take a genius to work out that, at that rate of progress, the Department will miss its target by some 100 years.
Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we need the Minister to have enough time to respond to all the points that have been made, so I would be grateful if he could curtail his remarks.
Clive Lewis
I will. You have just destroyed my punchline, but it is fine, Mr Hamilton.
The Department will miss its target by some 100 years, which is not quite in the territory of Buck Rogers, who I believe woke up in the 23rd century, but, alas, not that far off either—sometime in the 22nd century.
So why such dramatic Government failure? Why the lack of vision and ambition in tacking this critical issue? Why are 6 million low-income families still living in badly insulated homes? Why has funding for energy efficiency for the fuel poor been cut in real terms by 20% and the installation of energy efficiency measures dropped by 65%? Perhaps some of those answers can be found in the debris and wreckage of the Government’s sorry excuse for a fuel poverty strategy: one that has shifted, chopped, changed and staggered on like a weary foot soldier in Napoleon’s winter retreat from Moscow.
First, there was the Warm Front—or, as it later became known, hot air—a Government-funded scheme that ended in 2013. Then came the green deal, hailed as “transformational”, but which was scrapped with nothing to replace it. The zero-carbon homes plan, introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2006, was scrapped with nothing to replace it. The warm home discount, providing automatic electricity bill support to low-income households, is due to expire next year with no sign of renewal. The energy company obligation or ECO—a Government scheme to encourage and obligate larger suppliers to deliver energy efficiency measures—will finish next year with nothing to replace it.
Here is the irony: not content with scrapping any semblance of a coherent fuel poverty policy, the Government have also lowered the bar and reduced the ambition of their schemes. Dithering, inconsistency, U-turns and failure are the trademarks of this Government. I look forward to hearing the Minister tackle this issue.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing a debate on such an important topic. I can absolutely assure him that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) explained, we are all here to try to make a positive difference, and my heart is absolutely in this debate.
As we all appreciate in this Chamber, the fight against fuel poverty is a significant challenge. Some 2.35 million households in England were fuel poor according to the latest statistics. In Scotland, as so many Members have mentioned, fuel poverty affects nearly 40% of the population. In Wales, 400,000 households are affected. In Northern Ireland, the figure is nearly 300,000. We all use different measures of poverty, but it is a very serious issue, and the Government are determined to make sure that the price people pay for energy is as low as possible, which is why we have been acting to ensure that the impact on bills of paying for clean energy is controlled, limited and, where we can, lowered. We are also committed to making sure the market works effectively for consumers, including through our commitment to implementing as fast as possible the final recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority, once those are achieved.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey knows, action on fuel poverty is devolved. I am sure he and his hon. Friends will be raising their suggestions for action on fuel poverty with the SNP Government in Scotland, as well as with me. I am absolutely committed to the responsibility that we have in the UK to tackle fuel poverty, but I note that alongside different measures of fuel poverty, different approaches are being taken by our nations to tackling the issue.
So there are GB-wide schemes that are designed to tackle the underlying causes of fuel poverty: inefficient housing through the energy companies obligation, and low household income through the warm home discount. We are working with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments on how these policies can be effectively amended to tackle the root causes of fuel poverty in all nations.
The devolved nature of fuel poverty enables different nations to take the action that is appropriate for them. Each of our nations has policies tailored to address fuel poverty at the local level, such as Nest and Arbed in Wales, the central heating fund in England or the home energy efficiency programmes for Scotland.
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry; I cannot give way.
I can assure hon. Members that we are working closely with the Scottish Government to set up a process and methodology for evaluating the impacts of schemes implemented in Scotland, on their own and in conjunction with schemes implemented in England and Wales, on the GB energy market, alongside other relevant UK obligations.
Hon. Members have mentioned energy prices for their constituents, particularly in Scotland. Our top priority is to keep bills down. This year, £57 million has been spent to protect bill payers in the north of Scotland from the high costs of distributing electricity. This represents a benefit of around £40 a year for each household in the north of Scotland.
Any move towards a single national network charge would produce winners and losers, a point highlighted in Ofgem’s recent report. For Scotland specifically, 1.8 million households would face higher bills and 700,000 would see reductions. It is not a simple question, but I can assure hon. Members that I am committed to launching a public consultation around the end of the year to review the most appropriate level of support for electricity distribution charges in the north of the country.
I want to turn briefly to the action this Government have taken to tackle fuel poverty. More than 1.2 million households are seeing lower bills due to energy efficiency improvements through the ECO. We are committed to ensuring that a million more get the same benefits by the end of this Parliament. But as the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), said last week, we are determined that the support available will be focused on those who need it most.
Our policies are having an impact. Since April 2010, Government policies have supported the insulation of 3.8 million lofts and 2.1 million cavities, and in 2013 we saw a fall in both the absolute number of households in fuel poverty, and in the fuel poverty gap. We are also determined to help households that, as hon. Members have mentioned, are off the mains gas grid and more likely to face higher energy costs, as well as more than twice as likely to be in fuel poverty. Off-gas-grid homes will have a focus in the central heating fund, specifically on dealing with the off-gas grid.
Finally, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich—
Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair); Order
Grand Committee
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Moved by
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, this draft instrument is an amending regulation to the main secondary legislation package for the capacity market scheme, part of the electricity market reform programme. The powers to make this implementing secondary legislation are found in the Energy Act 2013, which, following scrutiny in this House and the other place, received Royal Assent in December 2013 with cross-party support.
The two changes contained in the draft instrument are simplifications intended to make the process easier for applicants, and were overwhelmingly supported by respondents in the consultation, but before I explain them in more detail it may be helpful to the Committee if I say a few background words about the capacity market itself.
I remind noble Lords that the capacity market will address our medium-term electricity needs and ensure that there is sufficient electricity supply towards the end of the decade and beyond. In brief, the capacity market will achieve this by making a regular capacity payment to providers who are successful in capacity auctions. In return for this payment, providers must meet their obligations to provide capacity, or reduce demand, when the system is tight, ensuring that enough capacity is in place to maintain security of electricity supply.
Ensuring that families and businesses across the country have secure, affordable energy supplies that they can rely on is our top priority. That is why we already have firm mechanisms in place, working closely with National Grid and Ofgem, to maintain comfortable margins on the system over coming winters.
Beyond that, it is essential that generators have confidence that they will receive the revenues that they need to maintain, upgrade and refurbish their existing plant, and can finance and build new plant to come on stream as and when existing assets retire. Equally, we want to make sure that those who are able—without detriment to themselves and the wider economy—to shift demand for electricity away from periods of greatest scarcity are incentivised to do so.
That is why we have the capacity market. The first auction, held in December 2014, saw a good outcome for consumers, as fierce competition between providers meant that we obtained the capacity that we will need in 2018-19 at prices below the levels that many had expected. That translates into lower consumer bills.
This instrument makes two minor changes to improve the capacity market, based on feedback from stakeholders. First, this instrument substitutes a new definition of “relevant grant” in Regulation 17, and secondly it extends from five to 15 the number of days in Regulation 59(3) of the 2014 Electricity Capacity Regulations, to permit providers a longer period in which to submit credit cover after receiving a conditional pre-qualification notice.
The amendment to the definition of “relevant grant” will ensure that grants, the purpose of which is to support feasibility studies or research and development in relation to carbon capture and storage, will not preclude participation in the capacity market. The essential feature is that the CCS support should not have provided effective material support which has put a provider at an advantage compared to others which have not so benefited. This will not be the case for such early stage grants for CCS purposes: hence the amendment. The second amendment amends the number of days from five to 15 to allow applicants, after receiving a conditional pre-qualification notice, longer to submit credit cover.
My department consulted on the two changes in March 2015 and received 22 responses. The vast majority of stakeholders who responded were content with the changes proposed. I look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say on these proposed changes. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is the first time that I have spoken in any meeting of the House since the Secretary of State announced that coal was going to come to an end within 10 years, and I congratulate the Government and the Secretary of State on that announcement, which is a major step forward. I disagree with a great deal of government energy and climate change policy but that is an excellent move forward, and I would like the Minister to note that and pass it on.
I have a couple of questions about the capacity market, although I have no issues with this statutory instrument. Will the Minister update us on interconnectors and the capacity market? There have been plans to bring on demand reduction aggregators but in the short term rather than the long term. I would like to think that we can bring on institutionalised demand reduction and aggregation much more than we have done in the past, something which is very much in the Government’s interests. On the reduction of fossil fuels, I recall that quite a number of the successful tenderers for capacity payments were coal generators. Do the Government have any plans to exclude them as we move forward to auctions?
We are now down to a very low level of margin, yet the National Grid and the Government seem fairly relaxed. Does that mean that a 20% margin in the past has been a waste of expensive resource that was not needed and that we should have been managing on much smaller margins? I should be interested to hear the Minister’s response on those issues.
Baroness Byford (Con)
I should like to make two observations. The Minister has said that the vast majority accept the proposals, so which respondents did not? I have no difficulty with the proposed change from five working days to 15, but there has been a suggestion in the public domain that electricity supplies could be fairly fragile in the coming months, particularly if we have very cold weather. How has that been built into the system? I am glad that feasibility studies were done and were accepted, but what is the comfortable margin of security of supply in the months ahead? Those are my questions: who did not support these proposals, and what do the Government consider a comfortable margin of security supply?
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction of the regulations. The amendment they contain is minor and uncontroversial, extending to carbon capture and storage the possibility that it could participate in the capacity market. The Government now seem to recognise the potential of CCS, as evidenced by the amendments recently agreed in the Energy Bill, now passed to the other place. They had previously not considered CCS as sufficiently relevant operationally to the capacity market, and this amendment allows that CCS projects which will in the first instance have received grant support or funding arrangements for early stage developments can now qualify for participation in the capacity markets. The essential feature is that this early stage support should not materially put the provider at an unfair advantage compared with others without that support. The greater matter is that any provider that can shift demand away from periods of greater stress without detriment should be encouraged.
I am content that this proposal was overwhelmingly supported by respondents to the consultation. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s intention a little further? While it is true that there is not as yet any deployed carbon capture and storage in this country, is it intended that CCS will eventually pre-qualify for capacity auctions in its operational phase?
It has been understood from the Government’s scoping document earlier this year that the operation of CCS plant operational support would take place through a form of modified contracts for difference rather than through capacity auctions. I would be grateful if the Minister could signal the Government’s intentions as early and comprehensively as he can to provide certainty about the direction of travel to developers. This amendment, and future intentions, could begin to allow the development of an industry that could be very valuable for the long-term use of fossil fuels. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has congratulated the Government on their plans to phase out coal generation, and we certainly support this direction of travel.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Grantchester, for their kind words regarding the speech given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Amber Rudd, last week in relation to the withdrawal of coal-fired power stations, with the aim of doing that by 2025. It was most kind and gracious of them to say what they did.
I turn first to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Yes, we are looking at interconnectors, I think to Norway and Ireland, in addition to the existing interconnectors as part of the capacity issues that we are addressing, and we are looking at the possibility of them elsewhere, including Iceland. That is a large part of what we are doing.
The Statement on coal was of course subject to a consultation, as the noble Lord will know, which opens in spring next year, I think, subject again to ensuring that we have the necessary capacity in relation to gas-fired stations coming on stream. Still, a clear market signal was given in the speech. Demand reduction is a significant part of what we are doing, and of course there will be a demand response auction as well in the new year.
With regard to the system margin causing concern, there is a trigger for this. At the moment we are very confident of the 5.1% margin with regard to the announcement of the most recent one. To the noble Lord’s suggestion that a 20% margin is more than we need, I suppose the answer must be yes—that must follow. However, obviously one wants to stray on the side of safety so we are seeking to address this. Although the margin is comfortable, we have to look ahead. The next few years look comfortable but we need to bring on the new nuclear and look at other forms, such as small modular reactors and so on. That, too, is important.
I turn to the questions raised by my noble friend Lady Byford. First, on the consultation, I think I am right in saying—the team behind me will correct me if I am wrong—that out of the 22 responses, 21 were supportive.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
It is a huge majority that a lot of parliamentarians would be content with; it is roughly 95%, so it is pretty convincing. If the noble Baroness wants more information, I am happy to supply it.
The second question was a very fair one: what is a satisfactory margin? It is dependent on many factors. As I say, we are confident that 5.1% is a sufficient margin but it is on the tight side so we are trying to build in additional capacity. It is dependent on many factors, most obviously the weather, as well as political factors, such as where gas is coming from. I remember from my very first visit to the National Grid in Wokingham that someone, armed with the Radio Times, was trying to assess whether there was going to be additional demand on the system, such as England playing a football match. Notoriously, at half-time—or into penalties, as it inevitably goes—people go and put the kettle on. Work is done on looking at factors like that. So there are lots of additional factors, but 5.1% seems to be a sufficient margin although, as I say, on the tight side.
I turn to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Regarding the ongoing position with CFDs, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in her speech that there would be contracts for difference in 2016, and we will set out nearer the time what the technologies are; I suspect that some will not be there, such as onshore wind, but that is just a view. We will set out closer to the time the precise way that that will work. I very much welcome his kind words.
Lord Teverson
If the Minister will allow me, I would like to come back on one point. I welcome his comments on interconnectors; they are something that over the past five years or so the Government have got more into, and they are an important part of energy supply. I recognise what he was talking about. However, I had the impression that there was an impediment to interconnectors bidding into the capacity mechanism system. That is as I understood it but I may be wrong. If that is the case, are the Government trying to rectify it? It is an important area of increasing competition that could reduce the cost to consumers.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I was unaware that there was a problem. However, 2015 is the first year in which the capacity market extends to interconnectors, so we are anticipating some activity. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, who asked a very fair question.
Renewables Obligation Order 2015
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Renewables Obligation Order 2015.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the renewables obligation is a long-standing mechanism for supporting renewable electricity generation in the UK. It places an annual obligation on licensed UK electricity suppliers to source a specified proportion of the electricity that they provide to customers from eligible renewable sources. The scheme is administered by Ofgem, which issues renewables obligation certificates to electricity generators in relation to the amount of eligible renewable electricity that they generate. Generators sell their certificates to suppliers, who use them towards meeting their obligation. Since it was introduced in 2002, the renewables obligation has played a key part in increasing the level of renewable electricity from 2.9% of total UK generation in 2002 to over 25% in the second quarter of this year. It supports around 22 gigawatts of accredited capacity.
The renewables obligation scheme has been subject to a number of changes in recent years. The draft Renewables Obligation Order 2015, which I am putting before the Committee today, revokes, consolidates and re-enacts the Renewables Obligation Order 2009 and the orders that have amended it since it came into force on 1 April 2009. It also makes consequential amendments to the Renewables Obligation Closure Order—in other words, a significant part of this order is a consolidation measure. The consolidation simplifies and brings together in one document the main legislation underpinning the renewables obligation, making it more accessible to those who use it, including the Government and industry stakeholders.
The draft Renewables Obligation Order 2015 also implements outstanding policy decisions on the renewables obligation consulted on in 2013 and 2014. The changes focus on three areas: strengthening the sustainability of biomass electricity generation; providing for biomass conversion projects with an investment contract to regain eligibility for support under the renewables obligation in certain circumstances, which I will go into; and providing for the transfer of biomass co-firing and conversion projects to the capacity market mechanism.
An earlier draft of the order was published for a three-week technical consultation on 24 March 2015. Comments were received from 18 respondents, mainly representing the biomass sector. The majority of responses focused on the detail of how the biomass sustainability land criteria had been incorporated in the draft order. We have considered all of the points raised carefully and have taken them into account where appropriate.
I turn now to the detail of the new provisions in the draft order. The first set of new measures is aimed at strengthening biomass sustainability criteria. The Government are committed to achieving sustainable and cost-effective bioenergy deployment, which drives carbon savings, minimises the environmental risks and makes best use of the biomass resource available, both for energy and non-energy purposes. Currently, there are mandatory sustainability criteria in the renewables obligation for the use of bioliquids, which transpose certain requirements in the renewables energy directive. Since April 2014, generating stations of 1 megawatt and above capacity, using solid or gaseous biomass, have been required to report only on whether they meet greenhouse gas emissions and land use criteria. This draft order consolidates previous changes and makes compliance with the greenhouse gas emissions and land criteria mandatory for generating stations using solid or gaseous biomass, in order to receive support under the renewables obligation, as is the position for bioliquids.
These measures will ensure that renewable generation from home-grown or imported solid or gaseous biomass receives financial support only where that biomass delivers genuine greenhouse gas emissions savings compared with fossil fuel, and where it is sourced from land that is sustainably managed, not from land with a high biodiversity value or carbon stocks. This area of forestry and timber will be an important part of negotiations in the Paris climate change discussions on 1 December, the day after the conference opens.
On greenhouse gas criteria, biomass power generation is already required to meet a greenhouse gas savings target of at least 60% compared with the EU fossil fuel average, and this target becomes tighter in 2020 and 2025, increasing in 2025 to 75%. This draft order introduces a new methodology for calculating an annual average greenhouse gas emissions figure for all biomass used by a generating station, excluding certain types of waste. The purpose of this calculation is to ensure that generators are not penalised if an individual biomass consignment exceeds the greenhouse gas target due to circumstances beyond their control, such as bad weather increasing transport distances. This is subject to the provision that each individual consignment of biomass must not exceed an overall ceiling. This prevents mixing extremely high-emission consignments with lower-emission consignments as a means of ‘washing through’ fuel consignments with unacceptably high greenhouse gas values. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that the intention is to be fair in relation to acts of God, extreme weather and so forth, but without providing an opportunity to circumvent what is a sensible provision.
On land criteria, the draft order requires generators using wood fuel to comply with specific land criteria, derived from the Timber Standard for Heat & Electricity—a domestic regulation, not influenced by Europe—which draws on the principles set under the Government’s timber procurement policy. There are some exemptions introduced for certain low-risk categories of wood, such as arboricultural residues—basically hedges—and material removed from non-forest land for ecological reasons. These criteria have been developed following engagement with interest groups and were consulted on in August 2013 and in 2014. They take into account a range of social, economic and environmental issues, including protecting biodiversity, land-use rights, sustainable harvesting and regeneration rates.
The draft Renewables Obligation Order also makes minor technical adjustments to the sustainability criteria for non-woodfuel biomass which correspond to the land criteria for bioliquids, for example, to implement recent EU legislation. It amends the reporting requirements for wood fuel to enable government to monitor more effectively the use of different types of wood by the bio-energy sector, as well as making the reporting provisions more workable for industry. Ofgem will regulate compliance with the mandatory greenhouse gas and land criteria. Generating stations using biomass which have a capacity greater than or equal to 1 megawatt must prepare and submit an annual sustainability assurance report which is compiled by a third party auditor or verifier.
The second new measure relates to implementation of the final element of the renewables obligation to contracts for difference transition policy. The first competitive contract for difference auction for renewables support was completed earlier this year and has allowed us to support low-carbon electricity projects at a lower cost to the consumer. This draft order provides for a biomass conversion unit or station which has previously entered into an investment contract under the final investment decision enabling for renewables process to regain its eligibility for support under the renewables obligation, including conversion-level support, if the contract is terminated for a “permitted termination event”, such as failure to secure, or a delay in securing, state aid approval from the European Union. This specific transition measure is necessary because the investment contract process commenced in 2014, ahead of the rest of the electricity market reform, and contracts were awarded ahead of state aid clearance. It aims to provide the assurance and comfort needed to encourage ongoing investment, safeguard security of electricity supply and ensure value for money for consumers. It may well affect two ongoing projects.
The third new measure in the draft order provides for combustion units to bid into the capacity market and leave the renewables obligation if successful in that bid. As we know, the purpose of the capacity market is to ensure that there is sufficient investment in the overall level of reliable capacity—both supply and demand side—needed to ensure secure electricity supplies. It will bring forward investment at least cost to consumers by allowing the market to set a price for capacity competitively. The first capacity market auction was held at the end of last year for delivery of capacity in 2018-19.
Biomass co-firing or conversion stations or units which wish to transfer from the renewables obligation into the capacity market will be able to claim support under the renewables obligation until the last day prior to the first day of the delivery year under their capacity market agreement—so it will be seamless—as long as they have given a capacity market transfer notice to Ofgem. This will ensure that all stations which are primarily coal-firers but have at some point claimed low levels of biomass co-firing renewable obligation certificates, and remain accredited under the renewables obligation, have a chance to enter the capacity market.
In addition, a biomass co-firing unit or station can withdraw from its capacity market agreement to fully convert under the renewables obligation prior to the first day of the delivery year under its capacity agreement—so it applies in both directions—or before closure of the renewables obligation to new generating capacity from 1 April 2017, whichever is earlier. The aim of this order is therefore mainly consolidation but with some necessary amendments in relation to biomass which I have set out. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I was in front of a very warm wood-burning stove over the weekend in my house, and therefore am a great supporter of wood biomass at a domestic level. There is great pressure these days from various NGOs to take biomass out of the renewables mix. I think the approach of the last Government and this Government has been absolutely right in tightening the definition of sustainable biomass, as this SI does, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and saying, “This is all wrong”. That is the right approach.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I shall follow the noble Lord again—we seem to be following each other around this afternoon. The Minister referred to the fact that some of the products will be imported, but the agreement was a domestic standard rather than an international one. My query merely follows on from what the noble Lord has just said. Are we requiring a higher standard of our producers here than perhaps of those coming from abroad? How does the Minister justify that in relation to what we are trying to do, which is to allow us to include biomass as a worthwhile product while, again, looking at sustainability for land, particularly forestry and woodland? I do not have a wood fire but I burn logs that fall off our trees from time to time. If we have a domestic standard, how is that different from the international standard and how will it be reviewed at the end of each cycle? That is not clear within the order.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I find it difficult to believe that it was 25 years ago when I was the Minister responsible for energy that I introduced the first non-fossil-fuel obligation, which has subsequently moved into an excellent series of initiatives that I very much support.
I have just two comments. The first picks up on the capacity market, which the Minister has just raised, and which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to in the context of interconnections. I understand from what the Minister has just said that renewable technologies will certainly be able to bid into that.
I have a question on sovereignty with regard to the development of interconnections. A country just across the Channel will face similar weather conditions to ourselves, and we are focusing our capacity market not only on bitterly cold weather but when the wind is not blowing during that bitterly cold weather for an extended period of time. That is more than likely to be the same in the neighbouring country, which will no doubt have a high level of demand for energy in its own right. How will the Government address the question of sovereignty over contractual arrangements?
My second question is a specific one from the recent consultation on adjustments to sustainability and reporting provisions for biomass. I note that the majority of responses were very positive to the Government’s proposals but there was one exemption to that, which related to the exemption from the land criteria on the timber standard when a number of respondents suggested that the exemption should be applied to a wider range of wood and wood residues. In that context, I see that the Government rejected that series of representations and I wonder if the Minister could give the Committee a little more detail on the reasons for that rejection.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. It is not particularly controversial. The Minister underlined that the RO scheme has been particularly successful in increasing the level of renewable electricity from the 3% generated in 2002 to 25% today. It is helpful that the order will consolidate into one document the Renewables Obligation Order 2009 and the orders that have since amended it, and that it will be the main instrument underpinning the RO, thus making it more accessible. We should perhaps note that the Renewables Obligation Closure Order 2014 remains valid pertaining to the closure of the RO to onshore wind in particular, something that the Government have been keen to amend through the Energy Bill that was recently in your Lordships’ House. The Renewables Obligation Closure (Amendment) Order 2015, regarding solar renewable electricity, also remains pertinent.
This order also implements outstanding policy decisions that were subject to consultation in 2013 and 2014, predominantly concerning biomass electricity generation—not only in consolidation, as I said, but also in regulations relating to its sustainability. We welcome the fact that the order should ensure the sustainability of biomass throughout the chain of biomass procurement, transport and production. Providers will now be eligible to enter the capacity market through giving advance notice to Ofgem that they have complied with the list of requirements concerning specific land criteria and other issues. This has been admirably developed from engagement with interest groups, taking account of social, economic and environmental aspects. Co-firing is also within the order, which is welcome.
I ask the Minister for further clarification concerning compliance with mandatory greenhouse gas emissions. To be able to receive financial support, biomass must deliver emissions savings in comparison with fossil fuels. In the submission of sustainability and emissions reductions, are the criteria likely to be accumulative throughout the chain? Will there be a total score to be complied with, in addition to providing evidence of sustainability at each stage? I ask this because it could be envisaged that further development of the methodology could be incorporated through amendments to the order at a later date, or even that greenhouse gas emissions relative to fossil fuels could be tightened further, beyond the level that the Minister stated. Perhaps the Minister could outline whether Ofgem will provide guidance on this issue, especially in relation to EU directives on biofuels. Is the Minister satisfied that there is no formal sanction for not meeting sustainability criteria beyond the so-called “acts of God” that he outlined?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the draft order. I seek to deal with the points raised by noble Lords in the order in which they were raised.
I turn first to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I thank him for declaring his interest in his own coal-fired facility—I apologise: I meant to say “wood-fired facility”. We are indeed tightening the definitions of what is eligible. The audit process is significant. First, there are some de minimis exceptions for small suppliers; I shall write to noble Lords who participated in the debate to outline what those exceptions are. Secondly, I think that the noble Lord was making the point that enforcement overseas is more difficult. We require limited assurances in relation to what is happening overseas, and once again I will write with details of that process.
I move on to points raised by my noble friend Lady Byford in relation to the standard that we are setting. I think it fair to say that we are ahead of the game, but for a good reason: the European standard will almost certainly be the same. Work on that is going on at the same time as on our own domestic standards. It is just that we are there first, so we do not have to catch up; we are ahead of the game. My noble friend noted that she does not have a wood fire. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will have picked up that point and will no doubt want to ask her over to experience his. I am glad to be able to bring them together in this way.
I turn to points raised by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I thank him for his early pioneering work in this area, which we continue to take forward. He made a fair point about the interconnections and the weather effect on the continent, which is likely to be the same as here. That is absolutely true. This is only one factor that influences the capacity issue, although it is a significant one. An interesting issue that we are researching arose recently in one of the Sunday newspapers: to switch to double British summer time. Not only would that reduce demand per se, it would put us out of line with peak demand on the continent. That is something worth looking at. It is an indication of the imaginative ways in which we can do fairly painlessly the things that we are looking at.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan also raised the issue of the range of woods required to be reported on in relation to the tightened requirements. It is true that some people suggested tightening that range while others wanted the requirements not to be so tight. All these things are a question of balance. One issue that was raised in the consultation on the tightening grip of requirements, and I will give more details on this in the letter, is that this reporting requirement is quite a burden for some businesses, so we are trying to get the balance right there.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his comments on the consolidation and in general on biofuels and the tightening of the conditions in relation to this area. I will write to him on specifically how we deal with the supply chain, because that was a fair question that demands a fuller answer. In relation to fuller answers, my officials were delighted with the question about the formula on page 75, so we will ensure that the noble Lord receives a fuller response on that if he really requires one.
Motion agreed.
Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2015.
Relevant documents: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, we are today considering an instrument which sets out definitions for the “protected groundwater source areas” and “other protected areas” in which hydraulic fracturing will be prohibited. The powers to make this secondary legislation are found in Section 4B of the Petroleum Act 1998, as inserted by Section 50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015, which, following scrutiny in this House and in the other place, received Royal Assent in February 2015.
Before outlining what the draft regulations seek to do, I will take this opportunity to restate the Government’s commitment to a low-carbon and affordable future for energy. Gas, the cleanest fossil fuel, still meets a third of our energy demand and we will need it for many years to come. It is vital that we seize the opportunity to explore the United Kingdom’s shale gas potential while maintaining the very highest safety and environmental standards. We have established these standards as world leaders in extracting oil and gas over decades.
Shale can and will be developed safely. The UK has over 50 years’ experience of safely regulating oil and gas exploration. We have world-class, independent regulators who will not allow operations that are dangerous to local communities and the environment to go ahead. Safety is and always will be absolutely paramount. Highly respected independent bodies such as the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering and Public Health England have reported that risks associated with developing shale gas in the UK can be managed effectively if operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation. We have a strong regulatory regime for exploratory activities, which we will look to review continuously as the industry develops. We insist on the highest safety standards, and all this is backed up by independent checks from the regulators.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I have given notice to the Minister that I was going to raise this point, but before doing so, I should say that I take second place to nobody in supporting the priorities spelled out in the statement that the Minister took the opportunity of making. We have to build up our sustainable energy resources. That is crucial to our survival. Our survival is not just an end in itself; it is to have a country worth living in. That is why areas of special exception are so crucial because that is part of a decent civilised society.
Quite serious issues have begun to register as a consequence of this statutory instrument. For example, in the Peak District there are complex geology and water quality issues that raise particular concerns with regard to the potential for harm arising from fracking. That is why it is essential to have a precautionary approach. We need to avoid removing important protections from the national park and to avoid potential risk to the deeper geological features, including show caves, potholes and systems enjoyed by thousands each year. Water quality and sensitive wildlife habitats in areas of the Peak District national park could consequently suffer. They are, of course, protected under primary legislation.
I should declare an interest because I am vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks and an honorary patron of Friends of the Lake District. In saying that, I should also emphasise that there is no pecuniary interest whatever—quite the contrary—in holding these roles.
The Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into the environmental risks of fracking made a recommendation for protected areas. Recommendation 8 states:
“Fracking must be prohibited outright in protected and nationally important areas including National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and ancient woodland, and any land functionally linked to these areas”.
The Government response was given on 26 March this year that the Infrastructure Act ensured that no associated hydraulic fracturing would take place within protected groundwater source areas and other protected areas, and that that would be clarified in secondary legislation by the end of July. The Minister referred to that. They confirmed that that would include—again, the Minister underlined this—national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest.
However—this is the issue—the proposed draft statutory instrument defines “other protected areas” as,
“areas of land at a depth of less than 1,200 metres beneath … a National Park … the Broads … an area of outstanding natural beauty … a World Heritage site”.
The draft statutory instrument, therefore, allows for associated hydraulic fracking within a national park at depths below 1,200 metres, and incorrectly states in paragraph 3(3) that the national park,
“has the same meaning as in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949”.
It seems that by default the draft statutory instrument is altering primary legislation by limiting the extent of the national park to a depth of 1,200 metres, and in so doing is potentially placing at risk the national parks’ ecosystem services.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I will raise two matters, which the Minister skated over slightly in his introduction. The first is the definition of the protected areas, which is a different definition to that which was brought into force when the Infrastructure Act was introduced by the previous coalition Government. The Minister made it clear that at that stage it included national parks, AONBs, world heritage sites and triple SIs, which are excluded from the definition in this regulation. SSSIs are some of our most valuable areas of wildlife and nature protection. If any noble Lords saw “Countryfile” on Sunday they would have seen the care with which many farmers ensure that triple SIs are managed sensitively because of their importance to the nation and to our biodiversity but in a way that is consistent with them getting an economic return as farmers. It is important that this Committee reflects on the fact that SSSIs have been dropped by this Tory Government; I will come on to the process of decision-making in a moment. I also highlight a point that was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—that this legislation no longer prevents the drilling of wells in national parks. I just want to make that clear.
The Minister went on to talk about the fact that there will be a concentration on drilling in national parks, but these draft regulations do not prevent a well being drilled from the surface in protected areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a few more words about the wording of the proposed consultation because I really do not understand it when it says,
“from wells that are drilled in the surface of National Parks and other protected areas, but without having an impact on conventional drilling operations”.
I would be grateful for more clarification of what the consultation will mean.
My main point is on the main process of decision-making, about which the Minister said nothing. What disappoints me so much about the impact assessment is that the Government have not looked at the environmental, economic and social impacts equally, and then, on the basis of a rational consideration of the three, decided that, “For the following good reasons, we are going to take this route”. No, they are quite honest and open; on page 3 they say:
“The environmental benefits from preventing hydraulic fracturing in protected areas has been considered, but not quantified”.
They then go on to say, on page 11:
“Extreme uncertainty attaches to the key parameters underlying this estimate; most if not all of the assumptions are subject to very wide margins of error”.
So they are taking figures from the industry but taking no evidence from anyone else. They accept that there are extreme uncertainties attached to the key parameters, yet they base the definition of “protected areas” solely on consideration of those economic costs provided by a wholly biased source, those in the industry, and the department does not even say that there is any certainty attached to those figures. Does the Minister really believe that that is the right way for a Government to make decisions—not looking at environmental impacts and basing decisions entirely on questionable costs provided by industry? That does not give me confidence in solid decision-making by the Government.
On the point about decision-making, the Minister did not mention that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee rightly challenged the Government over why there was no public consultation or indeed any ministerial Statement. I thought that the response provided by the department was pretty thin, but then of course I am sure that is because it was very worried about bad publicity, particularly in the Weald and Bowland, when this regulation came forward. Even if the department is worried about that, though, it strikes me that the public have a right to know. A lack of transparency will just breed more cynicism in the process and that will make it even harder for the Government to get what they want, which is more fracked gas, so this seems to be a rather short-sighted approach.
In conclusion, I am disappointed in how the Government have come to make this decision. It is disappointing that SSSIs have been taken out on that basis. It shows an extremely cavalier approach to environmental protection that does not serve this Government well. I fully understand that they want to have a dash for gas but they have to accept that we have to do that in a way that takes people with this and, rightly, protects what is special and precious about our countryside. The process of bringing about this piece of secondary legislation does not do that.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the statutory instrument. I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I declare straightaway that I have no pecuniary/financial interests. I have an interest in energy and in the area of fracking in particular because I think there has been so much misinformation put about about the process. All the sources that I quote from are independent; I do not rely on the oil and gas industry to supply me with information. If I do not agree with much that the noble Baroness said, I agree on the point that we should not rely just on the industry.
One phrase that the noble Baroness used made me smile, albeit ironically. She used the phrase “dash for gas”. Would that we were doing so! There has been no dash for gas, that is for sure. I forget for how long exactly, but one exploration well in Lancashire has been delayed for over three years. Considering the amount of experience out there, including in some quite sensitive areas, there has certainly been no dash, and there has been plenty of environmental examination.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I assumed that that was the case. I thank my noble friend for that.
We are going to be dependent on gas for 30 years, and some would say for even longer than that. It is ironic that we are prepared to import it. We know that importing liquid natural gas is not good in terms of emissions. Gas, certainly in comparison with coal and with liquid natural gas, will reduce carbon emissions significantly.
I am not by any means opposed to renewables. Since we are burnishing our own contributions, I would mention that the solar panels on my roof are working very effectively and I have ensured that my local primary school has just installed solar panels. I am as committed as anyone to renewables.
This, however, is a sensible and measured approach to developing shale gas and it takes into account the understandable concerns that we should have about protecting sites of outstanding natural beauty, national parks and so on. All the agencies that have been involved with this, including the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive, consider it to be low-risk. We are talking about drilling to very deep levels before the fracking turns and goes underneath: 1,200 metres is a long way below the natural water aquifers, which the Minister referred to as being at 400 metres.
So I welcome the statutory instrument because it is important that we have a balanced and integrated approach to energy. It is unfortunate that it has taken us so long. It would have been interesting to see, if we had produced our own natural gas and if the costs of energy had been reduced, whether the Redcar situation would have been impacted. I do not want to make unreasonable assumptions.
Another point about assessing the potential economic benefits was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Most of the figures are usually obtained from the Royal Geological Society. Where I would partially agree is that no one can be sure until you start drilling. I have spoken to some of the world’s leading experts on fracking and they all tell me the same thing: you can drill a well and it may or may not produce. You can move along a few hundred metres and you may strike lucky. There is no certainty.
We know that that there are very significant amounts of shale gas there. We need to be able to assess the situation and do the drilling safely wherever we are doing it. It does not matter whether we are in an area of outstanding natural beauty or somewhere else: we want it to be safe. We want it to be justified in terms of an integrated approach to energy. We also need to take into account whether there is potential for jobs. There is a mothballed training college in the north-west that is ready to go and would give us probably a few thousand apprenticeships and many thousands of jobs. There has been no dash for gas; there has been a sensible, measured and proportionate approach. I welcome the introduction of this statutory instrument.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument today, which I welcome. I have listened very carefully to the contributions made by others, and I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her expressions of appreciation to the farming community, which cares very deeply about biodiversity. I should declare an interest as we have a farm in Suffolk, although not where any fracking will be taking place.
Can my noble friend tell us a little more about the urgency of the need to get shale gas into action, bearing in mind the various aspects of gas and oil production that we have been debating over the past year? As noble Lords will know, we had a big debate on setting up the Oil and Gas Authority. At the moment gas seems to be in fair profusion—they are not the words I really want to use but I cannot think of the right ones, so I apologise to noble Lords. I think that we in Committee are all agreed that we need to have a balanced approach to energy production. That is what we are really after and I am grateful to noble Lords for their support in that.
I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is rightly very passionate about his concerns on areas of outstanding natural beauty. I also take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, which I had not picked up, that SSSIs were not included, so I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
In the scenario that I have set out, I wonder if we have slightly more time to review the way in which we use, and explore for, shale gas. I am sure that it is the right thing to be doing, but the gas that has been referred to is not as great as it might have been considered a couple of years ago. That is not to say that I am not in favour of shale gas exploration, because clearly I am. However, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us a little more about the costs involved, or if there are costs that I missed in the impact assessment, because of the decline in the cost of oil and gas, and whether fracking has less of a drive than it perhaps had a little while ago when energy costs were so expensive. I can well understand if the Minister wishes to write to me on that because it might be argued that that is why we are having this debate today. I thought it was important to include it because certainly we need to be looking to the future for a sustainable supply of gas—shale is but one option—and at the same time having a very balanced approach to the biodiversity of the land above the soil and obviously, as noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, to that beneath. I take the point that it is a long way down; it is in fact metres, not feet.
I have raised one or two questions in the broader context and I wonder whether there is slightly less pressure than there was in the circumstance before. It gives us a wonderful opportunity to use the shale gas that is there to be used while at the same time ensuring that we use it in the wisest way and that we have time to review how that development is going. If there are issues on which the Minister does not have briefing, I am more than happy for him to write to me later on.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. He has explained the Government’s approach to providing added protections and assurances relating to the major public concerns regarding fracking in environmentally sensitive areas around water catchment zones, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and world heritage sites. We regard this as largely beside the point, though, so we have severe reservations about these regulations.
The point is that from the passage of the Infrastructure Bill earlier this year in the other place the outlined areas were thought to have been excluded altogether from fracking explorations and production. As has been said, the Secretary of State is quoted as agreeing that there will be an outright ban on fracking in natural parks and these other environmentally sensitive areas. This is rightly leading to grave public concerns. It cannot be bypassed by, in these regulations, permitting fracking to proceed with only the added conditionality of being driven further underground. Quite simply, there was agreement that there would be no-go areas within which fracking would not take place, and with these regulations the Government are now backtracking.
Furthermore, the Government have not gone to consultation on the regulations. This has rightly become the subject of the eighth report from your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The Minister’s department refers to consideration of the Infrastructure Act as justification for there being no public consultation about the definitions within these regulations. The Committee takes the opposite view that both public consultation and a ministerial Statement could be justified.
Are the Government trying to avoid embarrassment and controversy? Are they once again trying to put forward measures that they want through secondary legislation that cannot be amended? Instead of public consultation, the Government have merely consulted the environmental regulators on the proposed definition of “protected groundwater source areas” so that their proposal of excluding depths of above 1,200 metres was workable in light of the existing groundwater regulatory practices. I also express concern at the exclusion of SSSIs from the definition, as has already been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Can the Minister state the evidence that 1,200 metres is the correct extra precautionary level? The Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales refer to sensitive areas for groundwater sources as source protection zones. These regulations will now provide a formal definition of how deep beneath the surface these SPZs extend, where before there was none. Can the Minister provide the Committee with any consideration or comments given to this specific depth by the regulators? Can he also clarify that these regulations would also apply to Scotland, in that the Scottish Parliament does not yet have legislative competence on this issue?
There is the further point of where the proposed wellhead of a fracking operation may be situated. These regulations do not prevent a fracking well being drilled from within the protected zone. Present guidance to planning authorities suggests that developments in these sensitive areas be refused unless demonstrably exceptional circumstances exist and they are in the public interest. Can the Minister confirm reports that the Government will consult on the question of whether wells can be drilled from the surface of natural parks and other protected areas? If these drills located outside protected areas can proceed down to 1,200 metres before changing direction and then cross underneath the surface of a national park, is this provision largely irrelevant? There will be understandably grave misgivings regarding the integrity of drilling levels should wellheads be situated within striking distance of national parks and other protected areas.
These serious issues, and others expressed around the Committee today, translate into our view that these regulations should not be proceeded with. We believe that Britain must pursue a socially just energy policy that is sensitive to the impact on the environment and climate change and how it impacts people’s lives, as well as the need for secure, affordable energy. These regulations should be deferred for further consideration by the Government. Indeed, that seems to be the Government’s position at the moment in the other place, where they have deferred further consideration on these regulations.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I will endeavour to cover the points that they have made. I shall address myself first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who, in a meeting yesterday evening in a corridor, did indeed tell me that he was going to be raising issues today. I have looked closely at what he said last night and have listened carefully again to what he said today. We have followed a precautionary principle: 1,200 metres below the surface is well below where normal drinking supplies will be sourced from in protected areas. The noble Lord might be making a point about these regulations being ultra vires or not within scope or perhaps running contrary to the national parks Act regarding access. I think I am right in saying that the deepest pothole in the UK is 198 metres, so there should not be any issue about access to 1,200 metres below the surface. That is not what was envisaged then or indeed feasible now, so I do not think there is an access issue relating to the areas that we are talking about in national parks.
What is happening in the regulations and the statement that we are making about surface developments is that there can be no development on the surface of a national park, as it were; any drilling has to come down and then across, and it has to be at that depth. I am able to offer that reassurance and say that, like the noble Lord, I am a great fan of national parks, particularly the Peak District, where I walk frequently. I do not pothole, but I would not be able to pothole at a depth of 1,200 metres anyway because that is just not feasible.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I was going on to say—perhaps I will come on to it now—that the scientific and environmental evidence is overwhelming that it should be safe at that depth.
In addition to the regime that we are seeking to set up here, as I have explained, there is a process of requiring a licence and planning permission, as well as the numerous EU directives that have to be complied with—the groundwater directive, the water framework directive, the industrial emissions directive, the environmental liability directive, the habitats directive and the mining waste directive—along with basic safety standards and the process that we follow. This country has a very good record for safety, and safety first, in relation to drilling. I am sure that no system can be 100% robust, but it is very clear that saying that this drilling is effectively two-thirds of a mile down very much favours the precautionary approach.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about the environmental impact. The economic impact is what is quantified in the assessment of economic impact; environmental issues are dealt with elsewhere. To come back to the basic point about the need to balance interests, we have an obligation, in terms of not just energy security but energy affordability and indeed our carbon footprint, to progress as a nation and to try to strike a balance between what is sensible and what is fair. We need to look at our own energy security rather than importing from overseas. My noble friend Lady Byford suggested as much by saying that we have to look to our own resources and these things take time, as indeed they do. Even with these regulations, as I have explained, there is a necessity for planning permission and licensing. In addition to the regulations, as I explained in introducing them, there is a discretion for the Environment Agency to turn down individual applications where it thinks there is good reason to do so.
I do not think that we can be accused of a dash for gas at all costs; indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that we as a nation cannot be accused of a dash for gas at all. It really is time that we started taking this seriously. We have this massive potential and we have the experience of what has happened in the United States. We cannot draw direct parallels, but I think that we have a greater regard for safety in this country than is the case there. We have every right to be proud of our precautionary safety-first approach. Like the noble Lord, Lord Young, I wish that we had had a dash for gas. That is certainly not what has happened historically.
I move on to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young. If he is doing well with his solar panels at the moment, then the London Borough of Ealing is obviously the place to be. I am reassured that he has them and that he is contributing to the great growth of renewables. I thank him sincerely for what he says, in a most unpartisan way, about the importance of this for British jobs, for British security supply and for affordability, all of which are very necessary. However, it is really not realistic to suggest, if you study this and react to it in a fair way, that we are cutting corners.
My noble friend Lady Byford raised points about the urgency of the need for shale, which very much ties in with what the noble Lord, Lord Young, was saying. There is an urgent need for shale for our own domestic supply. Of course, we need to balance that; safety must come first, with proper planning and environmental considerations, which are already there.
To come back to protection, we have afforded particular protections to national parks, to the Broads and to world heritage sites by providing that drilling has to be at a greater depth. We have provided protection, too, by stipulating that there can be no development on the surface in those areas; we have also provided that protection in relation to SSSIs and Natura sites and so on. It is true that we have not extended SSSI protection below 1,000 metres, but 1,000 metres is well above what is considered safe in the assessment of the various scientific bodies—the Royal Society and so on—that have looked at these issues.
So far, there have been no successful planning permission applications in relation to shale, but these things take time. We have a massive potential and we have issues to address. This is the right way forward and it is a satisfactory approach. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, says about people’s concerns about surface activities. That is why we have said that there can be no surface activities in the areas that demand particular protection. However, we have to recognise that, if we are too restrictive, that will just drive investors away altogether.
My noble friend Lady Byford also raised the question of whether there is interest. There is some interest—there have been developers who are interested in this—but we do not want to make it so difficult or so unattractive that all interest dies away all of a sudden. We are not that sort of nation. We have energy issues to address on security of supply, which we looked at in relation to other statutory instruments earlier today.
I turn to two additional points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. First, this does not apply to Scotland. We anticipate that Scotland will bring forward legislation of its own. This is a measure for England and Wales. Secondly, as he rightly said, we have chosen to align the 1,200 metres issue with the source protection zone 1 areas. That seems the sensible approach; the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales have recognised that. It seems a consistent approach. I do not think that there is any danger of pollution to groundwater. I do not accept that there is any massive safety issue. You can never be 100% certain, but we are almost there with our safety regimes, which I think we should be proud of.
Lord Judd
The Minister is being his usual self in being very full in his response, which I appreciate greatly, but he has not really dealt with the constitutional issue of whether you can redefine what is a national park through an order when there is legislation covering national parks and their status. I hope that the Government will look at that before this issue comes before us again. He really must not pit those who have anxieties about what is happening with the government situation on national parks against the general argument about making ourselves self-sustaining in energy. I am absolutely convinced that we must make ourselves self-sustaining in energy, but there are exceptions to the application of what is necessary.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, on the second point first, I was certainly not suggesting that the noble Lord, with his vast experience, or indeed anyone else, was raising anxieties that were not valid. I was seeking to reassure noble Lords that we have a safety regime of which we can be very proud and proposals in these draft regulations that strike the right balance. In relation to the first point that the noble Lord raised about the constitutional position of national parks and the argument that he is deploying that we are redefining national parks in this statutory instrument, I know that he has vast experience, but I think that that is rather a creative argument. I will of course have a look at the issue, but I do not for one minute accept that that is the case. However, I will write to him and other noble Lords who have participated on that point.
Health and Care Professions Council (Registration and Fees) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules Order of Council 2015
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Health and Care Professions Council (Registration and Fees) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules Order of Council 2015 and of the increase in mandatory registration renewal fees for health and social work professionals (SI 2015/1337).
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this order concerns the Health and Care Professions Council and its fee raise, which is in relation to 330,000 health and social care professionals. They include paramedics, occupational therapists, biomedical scientists, chiropodists, dieticians, physiotherapists, radiographers, prosthetists, orthotists, speech therapists and social workers. That list brings home the importance of this group of professionals. Parliament, through various pieces of legislation, has seen fit to ensure that they are subject to mandatory regulation in the interests of public protection. Parliament also has a role, therefore, in overseeing the performance of the regulatory bodies.
On 1 August, the annual registration fee for members of the professions covered by the HCPC went up by 12.5% overnight as a result of the order that we debate today. The order was passed in the face of cross-party concern, including 100 Members who signed up to an Early Day Motion and indeed the tabling of a Motion to annul in committee at Holyrood. The 12.5% increase in fees followed on the heels of a 5% rise the previous year and in the face of assurances given by the HCPC in 2014 that it would not look to raise fees again until 2016. This is not being done in isolation. I know that we are not discussing other regulatory bodies, but I would mention to the Minister the NMC, which raised fees for nurses in 2013 from £76 to £100 and in 2015 from £100 to £120. The points that I want to raise in principle relate to a number of these regulatory bodies.
The contrast that I want to make is between the regulator’s demand for an increase in fees alongside what is essentially the sixth year of pay freeze and pay restraint and the Government’s policy on austerity generally. It is a puzzle as to how, when the public sector in general is under tight financial control, the one area that seems to be able to raise its fees willy-nilly is that of the professional regulatory bodies and the Care Quality Commission. The Minister will know that the CQC proposes to raise fees hugely, at some financial risk, particularly in the care sector. That is not for debate today, but there is an issue of principle here: in contrast to the issue of pay restraint and restraint generally on the public sector, a group of regulators seems to be able to put forward proposals, which the Government accept, for large fee increases.
I read the consultation paper issued by the HCPC, which said that the unexpected fee rise was prompted by the levy that it now has to pay to fund the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, the regulators’ regulator. I understand that and it was fully discussed in a debate in the other place in March. However, it subsequently emerged that the levy that it said had to be paid because of the Professional Standards Authority actually accounted for only 30% of the fee rise, and the remaining 70% was so that the HCPC could buy new accommodation for hearings, IT and quality assurance systems. In the consultation document, as far as I can see, that was not made clear. There was no breakdown or detailed justification of the fee increase.
That is particularly striking in light of the judicial review proceedings brought by the British Dental Association against the increase proposed by the General Dental Council whereas I understand that the High Court said that a regulator’s consultation on fee increase must set out a clear and detailed breakdown of the financial case for proposed increases. My point to the Minister is that that did not happen in relation to the HCPC consultation. There are three areas that I want to touch on. The first is that the consultation itself was extremely short. It covered the Easter holidays, May Day bank holiday and the purdah period. It closed on 6 May, the day before the general election. It totalled just 26 working days, leading many to suspect that it was designed to be buried away from scrutiny.
My second point is about accountability. Of those who did respond to the consultation, 86% of individual respondents objected to the increase, as did three-quarters of organisations. Their objections made not one iota of difference.
I come now to the role of the PSA, the regulators’ regulator. One of the problems is that while in a sense it can ask for a levy in order to fund itself, it does not seem to have a role to intervene on how regulators set fees or consult on them. In the light of experience with the HCPC, it would be good for the PSA to take a more proactive role. We know from submissions that I have received from staff organisations—I particularly refer the Minister to a survey by UNISON of nearly 5,000 registrants across the professions—that the fee rise was commonly referred to as a stealth tax. If you have no choice but to pay to practise your profession then it feels like a form of taxation. Yet registrants have little representation in the decision-making process that sets that fee.
Will the Minister also comment on the issue of the HCPC? Does it represent value for money? I know that the HCPC has done very good work, and I do not deny that it has absorbed a number of professions over the years successfully. However, these large fee increases bring concerns about whether the overall operation of the HCPC—and the other regulated bodies—is as efficient as it could be.
I want to raise with the Minister an issue that has been presented to me: although the fee might not be considered large in absolute terms, it is, none the less, a consideration for part-time staff in their choice of profession. The Minister may be aware that, as I understand it, the HCPC has declined to introduce a pro-rata structure, or differentiated fee structure, for part-time workers. That is a pity, given the need for us to attract staff and the fact that part-time staff have a lot to offer.
I understand that nine trade unions and professional associations representing registrants in HCPC fitness-to-practise processes have written to advise the HCPC that more could be done to control its costs, improve its efficiency and reduce the number of unnecessary hearings. They also made detailed recommendations on how the investigating process could be improved in order to root out unnecessary investigations, reduce the number of lengthy hearings and facilitate consensual resolutions. Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, here of course brings great joy to us all, but I cannot help commenting on the draft Bill drawn up by the Law Commission, which he would have received some time ago. Well, he may have commissioned it, I do not know whether he received it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If I remember correctly, it was commissioned in 2011 and received by my successors in April 2014.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, if he had still been in place I have no doubt that he would have acted on it. The point is, however, that a lot of the problems with the current fitness-to-practise procedures among health regulators generally derive from the fact that we have not implemented the Law Commission’s Bill, which would have allowed for a much more streamlined process.
The HCPC has, as I say, earned a great deal of credit for the way in which it has absorbed new professions over the years. I hope, however, that in this short debate the Minister will agree to look at some of the general principles raised. Does he agree that in any future proposal for a fee increase there needs to be a full breakdown and detailed justification for it? Does he also agree that it is not a good thing for Ministers to entertain fee rises that are higher than the percentage fee rises that are going to be given to NHS staff? There is an issue about pay restraint on the one hand and what seems to be the regulator’s ability to raise fees well above that rate on the other. Will he consider discussing with the PSA whether it will take a more proactive role in monitoring and evaluating any proposed increases by the regulator it oversees? Will he also look at whether the HCPC should be required to introduce a pro rata, or differentiated, fee structure for part-time workers?
Lastly, and I am sure the noble Lord will say yes to this, will he say that the Government will make it a priority to bring in primary legislation as soon as possible to implement the Law Commission proposals? The alternative is that the Minister will have to go through a succession of Section 60 orders when as a general principle he would find widespread support for the Law Commission proposals—there are one or two issues that we will debate—for a streamlined process that would apply consistency across all the regulated bodies. I am sure that it would reduce the cost of the regulators and, if the Government are not able to bring this in as a full Bill, at the very least it lends itself to pre-legislative scrutiny. However, there is enough consensus around the proposal to allow the Government to introduce a Bill. This short debate is a good opportunity to raise the issue of transparency of the regulators, and I hope that the Government are prepared to give this further consideration when a proposal comes up in the future. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing this short debate on the HCPC. It raises other issues beyond the HCPC that are of great interest to us.
The HCPC is a statutory regulator established to protect the public. To do this, it keeps a register of professionals who meet its standards for professional skills and behaviour. The noble Lord knows all that, but this is a preamble. There are 330,000 professionals across 16 health, psychological and social work professions. It is a very large regulator. It is self-financing, with funding coming entirely from registrant fees. It does not receive any regular funding from the Government.
The HCPC’s registration fees are the lowest, and have consistently been so, of all the UK statutory regulators of health and care professionals overseen by the Professional Standards Authority. Its fees are £90 a year. The next lowest regulator, the NMC, charges £120 per year. By way of comparison, the GMC is £420 a year. However, as a self-funding regulator, like all the professional regulators, its needs to keep its fees under regular review so that it can respond to demands on finances and resources, and to continue its role of delivering effective public protection.
As noble Lords will know, from 27 March 2015 to 6 May 2015 the HCPC consulted on raising its fees by an average of 12%, or £10 a year. That is 26 days. I appreciate that it was over an election period but that decision on consultation had to be with the council of the HCPC and the decision to formally review and consult on an increase to its fees was the result of three factors: first, as the noble Lord mentioned, because the PSA fee regulations came into effect, as a result of the Government deciding that the PSA should be funded by the regulators that it oversees, rather than the public purse; secondly, to improve how fitness-to -practise hearings are run; and thirdly, to invest in essential IT systems.
In relation to the first point, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (Fees) Regulations 2015 came into force on 1 April 2015. This marked the realisation of the previous Administration’s commitment, set out in the Department of Health’s report Liberating the NHS: Report of the arm’s-length bodies review, to move the PSA away from government funding, to becoming funded by a fee on the nine regulatory bodies that it oversees. As required by those regulations, the PSA’s fee is calculated on each regulatory body’s registrant numbers. The HCPC is the second largest regulator by registrant numbers and will contribute to around 22% of the PSA’s funding. The PSA fee will be determined each year.
This methodology was considered fair because available evidence suggests that the level of PSA resource given to each regulatory body is very much influenced by the number of registrants as this critically informs the level of Section 29 work that the PSA undertakes for each regulator. Section 29 work is where a fitness-to-practise case is heard in court.
While around one-third of the 2015 fee increase was to meet the PSA’s fees, as I have said, the HCPC is also making improvements in the way it works. The HCPC is also looking to improve its fitness-to-practise processes. In doing so, the HCPC plans to introduce dedicated facilities for fitness-to-practise hearings. The HCPC’s existing office space was not purpose built for holding public fitness-to-practise hearings, which affects its ability to run a high-quality and modern adjudication service. It believes that introducing dedicated space will be consistent with the modern adjudication facilities provided by other regulators.
The HCPC also says that that the number and length of hearings are key cost drivers of the fitness-to-practise process. It has said that it aims to keep the cost of hearings low—for example, by proactively looking to conclude cases with the consent of the registrant involved, where appropriate. This avoids the need to have a contested hearing, with all the costs this involves. However, the HCPC says that it has seen an increase in the complexity of the cases since 2012. This has meant that the average length of a hearing has increased over time. The average number of witnesses required for each hearing has also increased to between three and four for each hearing. The HCPC’s primary objective is public protection, and it says that every allegation it receives must therefore be considered on its merits.
On the third point, the HCPC says that the new IT system it is looking to introduce will make its work more efficient by replacing a number of other legacy systems, by driving and delivering time and resource savings. Additionally, a project looking at redesigning the HCPC’s registration processes and systems should improve the level of service that it is able to provide to applicants and registrants by allowing them to carry out many more tasks online.
Finally, in determining budget forecasts for future years and the level of fees, the HCPC says that it had to make assumptions about costs and activity level—in particular, the volume of fitness-to-practise cases. It says that these forecasts indicated that despite generating a surplus in previous years, without the 2015 fee increase it would make operating deficits in 2015-16 and 2016-17. This would not be sustainable and would threaten its ability to fulfil its role of protecting the public. Additionally, the HCPC registers each profession on a two-year cycle, so it will take two full financial years before any increase in the renewal fee has full effect.
The HCPC says that it has not changed its ongoing commitment to the principle of small, regular increases in the fees where possible and necessary. Its latest five-year plan does not forecast any further increase in fees until 2019-2020. That said, in the past the Government have expressed a view on registration fees and the expectation that they should not increase beyond their current levels unless there is a clear and robust business case that any increase is essential to ensure the exercise of statutory duties.
The noble Lord raised a number of issues. First, he asked that in a consultation exercise there should be a detailed breakdown of the reason for a fee increase, which strikes me as a reasonable request, which I will draw to the attention of the PSA. He said that the fees should not increase by greater than the amount of the increase paid to NHS staff. All I can say is that the fee increase must be kept to an absolute minimum. I entirely appreciate that we live in a very difficult world, and fees must be kept to an absolute minimum. I do not think that we can make any commitment that they should be kept to the absolute level of increases of salaries paid to NHS staff.
The noble Lord asked that the PSA should take a more proactive role. Of course, the PSA undertakes an annual assessment of all the organisations that it is responsible for, which is tabled before Parliament. It is of course up to the Health Select Committee, if it wishes to do so, to have any individual regulator before it.
The noble Lord also asked about part-time workers; I hope that it will be all right if I write to him about part-time workers, as I am not sure of my answer on that. As regards the work the Law Commission has done, I think we all accept that it has done an outstanding job and made some extremely important and what could be very useful recommendations. The Government are currently reviewing how to take forward the work of the Law Commission.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prior. He is right to acknowledge the issue of pay restraint. However, I have three points. On consultation, I hope that the HCPC and the PSA will take note that it is reasonable to have a proper consultation in relation to fee increases in the future. Secondly, I noted what the Minister had to say about the introduction of IT and new systems and that it would lead to resource savings in the future. I have some experience of IT systems in the health service, and I certainly hope that that comes true. I noted the expectation of no further increase until 2019-20. Given the expected resource savings from new IT systems, it would be very disappointing if the HCPC came forward with any other proposal in the next Parliament.
Thirdly, I understand the Government’s reluctance to bring health legislation through Parliament, but one has received so many representations from the regulatory bodies. Given the extensive work of the Law Commission, I hope that the Government will give further consideration to bringing a Bill before Parliament before too long. The debate has been very helpful and I am most grateful.
National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee takes note of the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015 and of the simplification of the assessment of the maximum waiting time for NHS treatment for elective patients, in the light of the review by Sir Bruce Keogh, and the risk that the current more complex standards could provide a perverse incentive to commissioning bodies to deal with those recently added to the waiting list before those who have already been waiting for more than 18 weeks (SI 2015/1430).
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this is another fascinating measure that the noble Lord has brought before the Committee, for which we are all very grateful. I do not want to extend the time of Grand Committee. I am having this debate not so much because I oppose the regulations, but because I want to understand the thinking. Clearly, these targets are important.
Obviously, I have read the Explanatory Memorandum, which makes it clear that the reason for removing the two referral to treatment waiting time standards related to the completed pathways of patients who started treatment is to focus solely on the standard for the incomplete pathways of patients waiting to start treatment. This is because of the confusion of the previous set of standards that had the potential to give rise to perverse incentives. I understand that. But I wondered whether the Minister could tell me what evidence he, Bruce Keogh or Simon Stevens had for how these perverse incentives were being used. Rather than introducing new standards, this is consolidating existing standards, but does the Minister think that there is a risk of new perverse incentives being introduced as a result of the regulations?
The regulations also relate to NHS-funded nursing care, which, given the vulnerability of the care sector as a whole, is of some considerable interest. Is the Minister satisfied that the current eligibility criteria for NHS-funded nursing care are being observed properly by the NHS and not being reinterpreted? The obvious temptation for the NHS is to ensure that little NHS-funded nursing care is funded because it can then transfer to means-tested social care. Given current budgetary pressures, I would have thought that that is an ever-present temptation for the NHS. Is the Minister able to provide information about NHS-funded nursing care and the extent to which there is consistency throughout the country in terms of ensuring that the eligibility criteria are observed? I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to say something in Grand Committee, so I hope that I will be forgiven if I trespass on any of the procedures. I was tempted to speak, not least by the noble Lord’s reference in his Motion to the potential perverse incentives surrounding the referral to treatment time targets.
We do not need to speculate on where there might be perverse incentives in the system of targets and the impact they can have on how the NHS manages such targets, as we can see them. We saw them under the previous Labour Government. They had two referral to treatment time targets relating to admitted and non-admitted patients for complete pathways. The net result, of course, was a perverse incentive not to treat patients once they had passed beyond the 18-week point. It was precisely for that reason, after the 2010 election, that my colleagues and I in the Department of Health thought it was necessary to have a third target. For example, we were presented with 18,000-plus patients who at the time of the May 2010 election had waited for their treatment beyond 52 weeks.
There was a perverse incentive. It was very straightforward: if they were brought in in any significant numbers, and they and others like them had gone well beyond the 18 weeks into treatment, they would not be counted for the then 90% or 95% target—particularly the admitted patients on the 90% target. They were simply ignored. That was not acceptable. It was not what the targets were intended to do and it was not for the benefit of patients. So we introduced the incomplete pathway which had a salutary effect. It brought the numbers waiting beyond 52 weeks from more than 18,000 down to the low hundreds. It is still only about 800 patients who have waited. We introduced zero tolerance subsequently, once we had brought the numbers down for beyond a 52-week wait. We do not need to speculate about perverse incentives; they were there.
I can understand where Sir Bruce Keogh has seen that the combination of these targets can create a degree of confusion. The success of having introduced the incomplete pathway standard is something that we can build on. That is what Sir Bruce and NHS England are aiming to do—a simple standard that no less than 92% should be treated within 18 weeks. That reinforces the 18-week standard and it is very clear in the minds of patients.
Of course, there is scope for perverse incentives; there always is. In this instance, we know that by failing to distinguish, as the previous targets have done, between admitted and non-admitted patients—non-admitted patients having been less costly and complex to treat—there is a perverse incentive to concentrate on the non-admitted patients relative to the admitted patients. It is fair to say that if we see that emerging, we would have to respond in terms of the structure of the targets. To introduce something that dealt with the transparent detriment to patients of waiting beyond 18 weeks and then simply being dropped from the system and ignored was the right thing to do. When the noble Lord talks about perverse incentives, we have dealt with what was the principal perverse incentive. It is perfectly reasonable for NHS England and for the Government now to focus on one standard to make life more straightforward for those who have the responsibility of managing an increasing workload in hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing this to the Committee. My noble friend Lord Lansley has pretty much done my job for me, but I think I had better go through with this to put it on the record. I thank my noble friend for that articulate and eloquent exposition of why we now have one incomplete standard and not the three that we had before.
We all accept that waiting times are critical. I should pay tribute to the Government of which the noble Lord was once a member. Bringing down waiting times was a huge success and there is no doubt that targets were one of the instruments used to do so. However, the noble Lord accepts that they are a blunt instrument and can lead to distorting clinical priorities. They can lead to gaming and extra cost, so they are not the whole answer. In particular, they can lead to perverse consequences. That is why the Secretary of State for Health and Simon Stevens accepted the recommendations made by Bruce Keogh earlier in the year. I will place a copy of his letter to the Secretary of State and Simon Stevens in the Library. The noble Lord may already have seen the letter but I will place it there.
Sir Bruce’s clinical advice on the standards used to measure the 18 weeks NHS constitution right was to remove the two standards that looked at how long people who have started treatment waited and to focus on the incomplete pathway standard—that is, the people who are still waiting. Perhaps I can explain that by using the analogy of a bus. The two earlier standards measured the people on the bus and the incomplete standard is designed to measure those who are left behind at the bus stop. As all three standards were written into the standing rules regulations, this statutory instrument, which took effect from 1 October, was required to make that change.
The change affects the metrics by which we measure the NHS’s performance on waiting times. It does not change the patient’s right. It is important that that is on the record. Patients can still expect to start treatment within a maximum of 18 weeks if they want to and it is clinically appropriate. If this is not possible, patients have the right to ask to be referred to an alternative provider that can see them more quickly, and the NHS must take all reasonable steps to meet patients’ requests. Sir Bruce Keogh recommended this change because having a set of three standards could be confusing and give rise to perverse incentives.
My noble friend described those perverse incentives. The perverse incentive was such that you could treat only one patient who had waited for more than 18 weeks as opposed to nine who had waited for less. There is no doubt that hospitals were managing their waiting lists on that basis. As a consequence, there were people waiting beyond 18 weeks for far too long. That was the wrong that the incomplete standard tried to address. As Sir Bruce said in June, while hospitals may be the ones penalised directly when they breached waiting time standards, the true penalty was laid on the patient who was waiting for much longer than he should have done. I wholly agree that that was not right.
In 2012—I think my noble friend was Secretary of State at the time—the Government introduced the incomplete pathway standard that a minimum of 92% of patients yet to start their treatment should have been waiting less than 18 weeks, to give NHS organisations a reason to prioritise patients who had been waiting a long time. The removal of the two completed pathway standards further minimises the potential for management of the waiting list to cut across clinical decision-making. Clinical priority should always be the main determinant of when patients should be treated. This clinical priority should not have been distorted because it should have been possible to meet all the clinical priorities and meet the waiting time standard, but in practice that was not always the case. Clinicians should make decisions about patients’ treatment and patients should not experience undue delay at any stage of their referral, diagnosis or treatment.
These changes will mean that there is a simplified, clearer focus on only one standard, covering all patients on the waiting list, and ensuring that those who have been waiting a long time are not left languishing. The noble Lord raised the issue, which was addressed by my noble friend, of whether having just the one standard will result in new and different perverse incentives. My noble friend made the important point that it could lead to priorities being skewed in favour of non-admitted, simpler, cases rather than admitted, more complex, cases. That is something we need to keep a very close eye on. NHS England will continue to measure trusts’ performance against all the standards except that there will be only the one measure in the contract.
I stress that changing the standards is not moving the goalposts in response to poor performance. This change has been made on the basis of clinical advice and in the best interests of patients, and has received widespread support, for example from the Nuffield Trust and the Patients Association. More than a million NHS patients start treatment with a consultant each month and the overwhelming majority are seen and treated within 18 weeks. However, the NHS is busier than ever, which is why we are investing the extra £8 billion that NHS leaders have asked for to support the five-year forward view. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this was done in good faith and in the interests of patients and that it was a decision informed by clinicians, not by politicians. I have not addressed the concerns he raised about the eligibility criteria for nursing, because they are not strictly relevant to these regulations, but perhaps I could write to him on that matter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very grateful for that. I must say that the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was very helpful. It reminded me that in 2001 I was resplendent in the title of Minister for targets in the Department of Health. I remember asking officials to count up how many targets we had set. When we reached 450, we decided we ought to start again, first by trying to refine the targets and then by setting up foundation trusts, in order to take them out of a directly managed form of control from the centre. Whether that has been entirely successful, in light of today’s circumstances, is up for some debate, though I still maintain that the concept of foundation trusts, with separate governance and local accountability, is the right way forward. I hope that NHS Improvement will see the benefit of trying to protect foundation trusts, and the good bits of their governance—the role of governors, the accountability of the board to local people—from overmanagement from the centre. I know that the noble Lord also chaired a foundation trust; he will know what I mean.
There is no doubt whatever about the targets. The waiting time in 1997 was more than 18 months. It was brought down to 18 weeks, which was driven by a target that people had to meet. That is always justifiable. However, we know that in both the public and private sectors, people who have to meet targets are very clever and sometimes the temptation for perverse behaviour is all too apparent. I hope that we can continue to rely on NHS England to monitor behaviour closely and that if it needs to adjust targets to meet any perversity, it is important that that is done quickly and responds to problems that arise.
I do not oppose these regulations at all; I think it is a sensible approach. However, it would be helpful if we saw that NHS England was fleet of foot in responding very quickly when new problems arise with targets, as inevitably they will. This is a good example of that.
World Biodiversity
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Blencathra
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle the loss of world biodiversity caused by human activity.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the matters that I wish to discuss today are largely taken from the excellent report by the IUCN Red List. By sheer coincidence, the latest list was published last Friday. It states that because of the melting ice at the North Pole, polar bear populations were expected to decline by 30%, confirming their vulnerable status. That was the headline announcement from the IUCN last week.
So, what is the IUCN and its Red List? The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organisation, with almost 1,300 government and NGO members and more than 15,000 volunteer experts in 185 countries. Their work is supported by almost 1,000 staff in 45 offices and hundreds of partners in the public, NGO and private sectors around the world. Of crucial importance is the fact that it is absolutely neutral; no one has ever challenged its findings or criticised its integrity. It is the most respected and thorough conservation organisation in the world and is free from political or personal bias.
The Red Lists are the most comprehensive sources on the global conservation status of animals, fungi and plant species. They are the starting point for conservation action. By 2000 the IUCN had assessed slightly more than 15,000 species. By 2015 it had assessed 79,859 species, and it has set itself the ambitious target of 160,000 species by 2020. The assessments are carried out by a global network of scientists who have access to the best scientific data and knowledge available on the species being assessed. Each assessment then goes through a review process involving scientists who were not directly involved in the first assessment.
The Red List is published in eight categories. The first category is species where the data are insufficient or not evaluated. The second category is “least concern”, the third “near threatened”, then “vulnerable”, “endangered”, “critically endangered”, “extinct in the wild” and finally “totally extinct”. The latest list, published last week, shows that of those 79,000-odd species 834 have been lost for ever and are totally extinct, while 69 are extinct in the wild. However, there are also 4,898 “critically endangered” species, 7,323 “endangered”, 11,029 “vulnerable” and 5,204 “near threatened”. I suppose if you had asked the public—or me, before I read that—to name critically endangered species, I doubt if we could have named 10. We might have come up with rhinos, tigers, maybe elephants, gorillas, polar bears and leopards, and then we would all have got a bit stuck. So how on earth have we got to the stage where almost 5,000 species are in danger of extinction and another 7,000 endangered? In the UK we have lost to extinction the starry breck lichen, and the roundnose grenadier is critically endangered, fished to near extinction by the French and Spanish. That latter comment is mine, not the IUCN’s, I hasten to add. The IUCN has also just announced that the Atlantic puffin, of which we all thought there were millions, has moved up into the “vulnerable” category.
Most people would say that it would be a shame if we did not see polar bears, pandas or lions any more, but would ask why we should care about all the other things that do not matter too much, like starry breck lichen. Those things do matter, though, and in our general ignorance of our wanton destruction we do not know how much they matter. Most Governments in the world are trying to cut carbon emissions but we are ignoring the one massive natural resource that captures carbon: forests. The protection of ecosystems such as peat bogs and forests is critical to regulating carbon. The Amazon rainforest has been described as the lungs of our planet because it provides the essential world service of continuously recycling carbon dioxide back into oxygen. More than 20% of the world's oxygen is produced in the Amazon rainforest, which also releases 20 billion tonnes of moisture every day, most of it watering crops tens of thousands of miles away.
The burning of the rainforest accounts for almost 20% of all carbon emissions in the world and that is far more than all the cars, lorries, buses, trains and ships put together. If we do not halt the total destruction of our rainforests we could close down all the transport in the world and we would still, eventually, die. We are destroying rainforests the size of England every year, and at the present rate they will be totally destroyed in 40 years’ time.
As rainforest species disappear, so too do many possible cures for life-threatening diseases. The National Cancer Institute in the United States has identified 3,000 plants that are active against cancer cells, 70% of which are found in the rainforests, and 25% of the active ingredients in today’s cancer-fighting drugs come from organisms found only in the rainforests. However, of those 25% of western pharmaceuticals derived from rainforest ingredients, fewer than 1% of tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists. So we have tested 1% and are burning the other 99%, yet we are getting a quarter of our drugs from that 1%. How can we be so stupid as to destroy a habitat and species permanently when we have not looked at 99% of the species in it and what benefits they may bring to our survival?
Let us briefly consider the three following facts: a single pond in Brazil can sustain a greater variety of fish than is found in all the rivers of Europe put together; a 25-acre area of rainforest in Borneo may contain more than 700 species of trees, and that figure is equal to the total tree diversity of north America; and the number of species of fish in the Amazon exceeds the number found in the entire Atlantic Ocean.
With enormous effort and will on the part of all Governments in the world we could eventually reverse climate change, but we can never ever bring back to life a species that has been wiped out. Biodiversity is not just about saving the red squirrels—dear to my heart—or the polar bears, orang-utans, lemurs and tigers, whose loss would diminish us all; of perhaps far greater importance to the planet are the plants, bugs, mosses and lichens that we never see and which are not cuddly or iconic.
Look at that tiny insect which we have taken for granted for millennia, the bee, which holds the key to huge quantities of our food production. That is just one insect that we know about and which we have studied. We kind of know the bee’s place in the jigsaw of the survival of humankind but why, therefore, do we carry on destroying without checking hundreds of other species whose role we have not studied and do not understand, but which might be equally crucial to our survival?
The complex and crucial interactions between species can sometimes be unrecognised until one species is lost from an ecosystem and the imbalance results in sometimes disastrous consequences. One example is that when top predators are removed from an ecosystem, prey populations can sometimes grow to unstable levels and deplete food resources, which leads to a cascade of ecological effects.
Not many people like vultures—big ugly, nasty birds which eat carrion and rotten flesh. So who cares if their numbers decline? In India a few years ago, in order to protect cattle from flies a pesticide was rubbed onto their hides. It was good for the cattle but when the cattle died, say, out in the bush, and the vultures ate them, the pesticide killed the vultures. India lost 99% of its vultures and what were the consequences? There were no natural scavengers to clean the bones, and rotting, diseased animals were eaten by dogs, which greatly increased in numbers and passed on diseases to humans. There are now programmes to save vultures, and by saving vultures, we save humans.
Not many people like sharks either. We see daily news reports of killer sharks all over the place. I have never seen one but I suspect that 99% of the public would not care if all sharks were killed. Sharks are being killed—in their millions. The median estimate for kills of sharks is at least 100 million, with some estimates at over 200 million. Sharks are heading for extinction unless the Chinese stop eating the fins—the main reason for them being killed. If the top predator of the ocean is taken out, we would certainly get an explosion in seal and dolphin numbers and a catastrophic decrease in fish numbers. We would have an ecological disaster which would impact on the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and it would be irreversible. However, when one species gets to the endangered or critically endangered category we can save it and reverse the process, with enormous effort.
I was privileged to work with the Cayman Islands Government for some time. The native blue iguana had shrunk to just 12 by 2005 and was functionally extinct. Thanks to the work of the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, based in Jersey, and the National Trust for the Cayman Islands, the project led by the excellent Fred Burton has now reproduced about 1,100 blue iguanas in total and almost 700 have been released back into the wild. In 2013 the IUCN dropped them from the “Critically Endangered” list to the “Endangered” list. Of course, the Cayman Islands are a British Overseas Territory, where most of the UK’s biodiversity is found.
I congratulate Defra, which is the most respected government department amongst the overseas territories for the work it does with the OTs and in CITES. I am delighted at the creation of the Pitcairn Island Marine Reserve, which at 322,000 square miles is the largest continuous one in the world. I hope that we can work with other countries in the South Pacific to one day make the whole South Pacific a marine reserve.
The loss of animals and plants, their habitats and their genes, on which so much of human life depends, is one of the world’s most pressing crises. It is estimated that the current species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than it would naturally be if man were not interfering. The main drivers for this loss are converting natural areas to farming and urban development; introducing invasive alien species; polluting and overexploiting resources, including water and soil; and harvesting wild plants and animals in unsustainable levels. Cutting down rainforests in order to produce soya beans, palm oil and beef burgers is sheer madness.
We were not responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs, but we have been responsible for all the species losses in the last few hundred years. Every decision we take that affects biodiversity also affects our lives and the lives of other people. Biodiversity is crucial to human well-being, sustainable development and poverty reduction.
I conclude with the words of the double Pulitzer prize-winning biologist, Edward O. Wilson. In 1980, he said that, in the 1980s:
“The worst thing that can happen—will happen—is not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us”.
The late Dr John Sawhill of the Nature Conservancy said:
“In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy”.
I am sorry to have taken so long.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on a fascinating speech and on securing this important debate.
Visitors leaving the Two Oceans Aquarium at Cape Town’s waterfront see a sign announcing:
“Planet Earth’s most dangerous predator”.
Under that sign is a full-length mirror. You stand in front of it and a neon sign behind you lights up with the word “You”.
We are well into the sixth period of extinction in our planet’s history, the first to be entirely manmade. The first five extinction periods were caused by catastrophic methane release, flood basalt eruptions, climate change and impact events like the asteroid famed for the death of the dinosaurs. The main threats to biodiversity today are overexploitation and unsustainable use of species; human wildlife conflict; habitat loss and degradation; emerging infectious diseases; environmental pollution; and human-induced climate change. Some 1.5 million species are known about, but scientists believe that there are potentially 5 million to 10 million or more to be found. However, because of this diverse list of threats, many of these unknown terrestrial and marine species may become extinct without us even knowing they existed.
Since 1970, our planet has lost half its wildlife. 10,000 representative populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish measured by the Living Planet Index have declined by 52%. Half of the Amazon rainforest tree species are under threat of extinction because of extensive destruction for timber. In Indonesia, forests are being burned to make way for palm oil planting, causing terrible air pollution which is killing animals, insects and humans.
I will say a few words about just three of the many species under pressure because of human activity: bees, bats and elephants. I turn first to bees. Since the end of the Second World War there has been a massive loss of wild habitat for bees and other pollinators. Some 3 million hectares of flower-rich grassland have been lost since 1945, leaving only 100,000 hectares remaining. Only 2% of wildflower meadows and grasslands that existed in the 1930s survive, with over 7 million acres lost.
Honey bees are only part of pollination; wild pollinators are crucial, too. Hoverflies and other fly varieties, butterflies and moths, bumblebees and other wild bees all play their part in pollination, as do bats, but these species, too, are in decline. In the UK, between 5% and 10% of pollination is done by honey bees, with 90% to 95% done by other pollinators.
In the last 35 years, 75 species have declined by more than 70% and more than 250 UK pollinators are in danger of extinction. If these losses continue unabated, we could lose 80% of plant species and 13% of agricultural production at a time when future food security is becoming a real issue. Human intervention has caused this disastrous decline, not just through loss of habitat but though the use of pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids, which confuse the orientation of bees. A halt to their use throughout Europe was announced two years ago. After signing up to this, the UK regrettably gave a derogation to use the chemicals in certain areas of the country, which is likely to worsen the situation.
The population decline of bees is a national emergency. One answer is to grow bee-friendly plants. The Bumblebee Conservation Trust helpfully names the top 10 plants to help bees—mahonia, pussy willow, viburnum, lavender, scabious, borage, comfrey, pink allium, bellflower and yellow aquilegia. We need to outlaw the use of neonicotinoids and carry out an education programme to inform the public on how we can all help the bees.
Secondly, I am appalled to learn that the fruit bat—sometimes called the flying fox—is being culled in Mauritius. Under pressure from farmers, the Mauritius Government say that 18,000 of these little creatures—almost half the population—will be culled because farmers claim that the bats are damaging more than 50% of their crops. The IUCN, which we have already head about, says that this figure is nonsense and that fruit bats account for no more than 14% of the loss. The vast majority of fruit losses come from poor farming practices.
The Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, which has been running a fruit bat project for over a decade, and opposes the cull, strongly encourages a scheme to subsidise nets and train farmers in pruning trees. A government cull of tens of thousands of these bats has no scientific basis and is putting the survival of the species at risk. Furthermore, a decision to cull will damage the good reputation in conservation that Mauritius has acquired internationally with support from organisations such as Durrell. I hope that our Government will make a strong protest to the Government of Mauritius and that the cull will be stopped.
Thirdly, elephants. As we all know, a global poaching crisis threatens decades of conservation successes of many species, including rhinos, lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs and elephants. The illegal wildlife trade is enormous, worth up to an estimated $19 billion a year. Around 30,000 African elephants are killed by poachers each year. In 2013, more elephants died than were born—a clear sign of a species in trouble. So what can be done? There are two elements of the problem—the market for ivory, and poaching. First, we need to try to eradicate the market. The big markets for ivory are China, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia. Education is the key. Apparently, in China 75% of people believe that ivory is a mineral. Documentaries such as those made by Sir David Attenborough and others should be distributed worldwide, particularly to schools, so that the next generation will appreciate better that wildlife is precious when it is alive.
Secondly, we need to end poaching. Inevitably, elephants are killed for their ivory. There needs to be a tangible reward for information on where poachers are. When park rangers and game wardens receive intelligence on poachers they need to act and they need training and equipping to meet this task. This costs money and a long-term commitment. The message must sink in that poachers are effectively “on licence” all day, every day of every year from now on. This worked for a while in Kenya. The current Minister for Wildlife and Tourism in Botswana has said that his country does not negotiate with poachers. They are told to lay down their weapons and, if they resist, they do not resist for long.
In some countries, poachers with machine guns use helicopters in their murky exploits. They shoot elephants and rhinos, land the helicopter, take the ivory and take off again. This is not random poaching; it is highly organised and financed crime. There is now hard evidence that these helicopter missions are linked to terrorism; they fund terrorist activity or drug activity elsewhere in the world by killing elephants for ivory and selling it to China or Vietnam. I favour the bazooka option for these helicopters, although this is not party policy. We would need only a few of these aircraft to be destroyed to ram home the message that poachers are not going to win.
It is not all bad news. Botswana has an increasing population of elephants—I draw attention to my declared interest in that country—and that is because their rulers, from Seretse Khama onwards, have loved their wildlife. I understand that if noble Lords wish to have elephants on their estates, they can have as many as they like from Botswana; you just arrange the transport.
I end with this story. A few years ago I was on a boat on the River Chobe near Kisani in northern Botswana. In the distance in the river was a very large elephant, a matriarch. All around there were hundreds, maybe thousands, of elephants. When she died a few days later, wildlife wardens dragged her body on to the riverbank with a tractor and chains. Then, for hour after hour, elephants filed past her in an orderly fashion, touching her body with their trunks—a family paying its last respects. It is up to humans to ensure that elephants, like many other species, are around for future generations to enjoy.
The Earl of Selborne (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important subject. I declare an interest as patron of the National Biodiversity Network trust.
Both of the speeches that we have heard so far have given us some stark information on biodiversity losses. We must accept that with the human population expanding, and with the standard of economies by and large increasing, there are bound to be competing demands for land use and maritime resources, hence the conflict between conservation and other interests. We have to tackle the question of how industries such as agriculture, which is a large land user, fisheries, mineral extraction and forestry can coexist with the requirements of conservation. Realistically, if you can achieve 15% of land cover around the world protected in some form, you are doing well. You are certainly not going to get vastly more; that is probably near the upper limit. We have to recognise that habitat destruction is not the only cause of the loss of biodiversity; there is also climate change, and we have heard about the introduction of alien species. These are the issues that have to be addressed.
What instruments are available to us that could be rolled out on a global scale? The UK has some quite interesting tools that it has developed, and it needs to think carefully about how it can pursue them further. In 2011 we published the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, which was started under the Labour Government of Gordon Brown and has been pursued with some interest by the coalition Government and the present Government. It gave us an idea of how to take an overview of the state of our natural environment, including biodiversity, and how to value our ecosystem services.
The second instrument, which again is a first in global terms, has been the Natural Capital Committee, which gives advice to government and others on how to value our natural capital, including biodiversity. The Government’s response in September this year to the third State of Natural Capital report, said that they agreed with the underpinning premise of recommendation 3, which was:
“Organisations should create a register of natural capital for which they are responsible and use this to maintain its quality and quantity”.
The government response continued:
“We support the NCC’s work on developing an approach to corporate natural capital accounting. We will continue to work with the Natural Capital Coalition and the Natural Capital Declaration as they develop an internationally agreed approach to valuing and accounting for nature in business and finance … Once a domestically and internationally agreed approach to natural capital accounting has been established, we will look at appropriate mechanisms to support further adoption of this approach”.
That seems thoroughly realistic and it represents quite a sea change in how we construct our balance sheets, and how we put values on businesses and their impact on the environment. We have to make progress on this. There is a danger that this will get bogged down in interminable committees. It is a significant contribution that we should make so that every organisation, ultimately, has to account for its impacts, for better or worse, on natural capital, including biodiversity.
The UK assessment exercise was massive. Many scientists were involved. It took place between 2009 and 2011 and had the great advantage that this country has a wonderful heritage of recording—any number of people go out recording birds and butterflies as volunteers. But scientists, government agencies, NGOs and others also do it. That gave us a head start. This information, particularly the long-term databanks, is absolutely critical. I draw attention to the National Biodiversity Network, which is bringing together all these records held by any number of agencies. We now have more than 110 million biological records and they are accessible to anyone online. That is the key. There is no point recording where you find one particular plant or see a bird if that is not available online in order to inform policy-makers. That was a great springboard from which to build up the information required for monitoring, valuing and accounting for natural capital, as well as identifying the required investment and management programmes—the risks, the costs and benefits. Those are what was really meant by developing programmes in order to protect biodiversity.
An investment programme has to be based on the strongest evidence of economic benefit. That could include woodland planting, peatland restoration, wetland creation, the restoration of commercial fish stocks, urban green spaces or improving the environmental performance in farming. These are, of course, happening in some instances. There is a feeling that these must be funded by government grants, but that will not happen, particularly when we hear the news tomorrow. We need to be a little more inventive about sources of funding that might include a wealth fund derived from rents from non-renewable resources and compensation payments from developers.
Other parts of the world clearly do not have access to the same amount of records as we have. But we should not minimise the amount of information that we can get from remote sensing. I do not know whether other noble Lords heard, as I did, Professor Kathy Willis of Kew describe recently on Radio 4, Oxford’s local ecological foot-printing tool for mapping remote sensing, which gives specific information on biodiversity, which, of course, has to be supplemented, ultimately, by fieldwork. But she made the point that using this tool they were able to provide information that had escaped people on the ground.
I am rather cynical about the United Nations targets—the Aichi targets—the five strategic goals and 20 targets. If you read them, you cannot dispute them. For example, by 2020, the extinction of known threatened species will have been prevented and the conservation status, particularly of the most in decline, will have been improved and sustained. Likewise are the sustainability goals agreed at the General Assembly of the United Nations just this September. Quite frankly, when, as happened in 2010, we come to assess the targets that were set at Rio, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, surprise, surprise, we have not met them. I fear there is a real danger with a lot of these rather woolly targets set at Aichi that the same thing will happen.
Let us assess what we have that we are proud of in this country and what we need to improve. We should be very proud of the Darwin Initiative, which has been going since Rio. It has done excellent work. Now, it is much more funded by DfID than by Defra. That means that there must be a human well-being content, thereby excluding some of the environmental projects that were supported in the past. Nevertheless, we are proud of it. We have managed some excellent UK-based conservation schemes. Referring back to the IUCN red list, we succeeded in taking the bittern and the nightjar off that list, which is a small plus. I agree that it does not outweigh some of the other cases referred to by my noble friend.
We have been active participants in the international programmes, such as Ramsar for wetlands, CITES for endangered species, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Therefore we have pulled our weight there. However, quite frankly, I am not sure whether we have brought the devolved Administrations in very successfully. When somebody from Defra goes to these meetings, there does not appear to be very good dissemination of outcomes, which certainly needs looking at.
Lastly, I make the point that historically we are bound to recognise that we have a key role. If you go to Kew, the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh or the Natural History Museum, there you have the type specimens—the collections to which just about every other country where these collections come from will need access to make their biodiversity plans. Again, we should be enormously proud of the resources that are available there. I note that the science strategy from Kew, in spite of the funding difficulties it is facing, is very positive.
Scotland is to be congratulated on the online publication last year of the Atlas of Living Scotland, an online biodiversity database built to inform the world of just what biodiversity, soils, climates and habitats can be found in Scotland. I much look forward to the day when England can do the same.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for seeking this debate. I declare my interests in the register of Members’ interests as being president, vice-president and chairman of a very long list of biodiversity and conservation organisations.
We have already heard that global biodiversity is declining at its fastest ever rate. I am rather more gung-ho than the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, about the Aichi Biodiversity Targets under the Convention on Biodiversity. Unless we set targets we will live in some sort of fool’s paradise, not being able to tell whether we are getting better or worse. We have less than five years left to meet these targets, and to be honest the noble Earl is absolutely right: progress and action from Governments round the world, including the UK Government, is simply too slow and too little.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, stipulated in the question for debate the loss of biodiversity “caused by human activity”. That gave me some pause for thought, because that pretty well means all loss of biodiversity. The biodiversity specialists I consulted could not think of a single species decline that was not caused by human activity. We have already heard some of the list: human development, introduced invasive species, climate change, unsustainable agriculture, fishing or forestry, as well as natural resource extraction, persecution and illegal trade—all those are manmade. Yet half the world’s population directly depends on biodiversity for its livelihood, and we all depend on ecosystem services that biodiversity and the natural environment provide.
I therefore ask the Minister how the Government plan to step up UK action to meet the Aichi targets and to help protect and foster global biodiversity. I will raise three issues in particular. First, the UK overseas territories contain—would you believe?—90% of the UK’s biodiversity, yet efforts by the UK Government to tackle biodiversity loss in the overseas territories is fairly low; there is a very strong presumption that the overseas territory Governments will cope, but they have very small capacity and even less money to do much. The current Darwin Plus funding stream is valuable but does not go anywhere near meeting the scale of the challenge.
I have the privilege of being president of the South Georgia Heritage Trust and just spent five weeks in Antarctica completing the third phase of eradicating the man-introduced rats and mice from South Georgia. They came with the whalers 100-odd years ago and had been eating the eggs and young of seabirds, penguins, albatrosses and the endemic South Georgia pintail, a rather dinky duck that looks more at home in a bath than on a rather cold island. The South Georgia Heritage Trust raised nearly £7 million to carry out the first three phases of the eradication programme. Although I am very grateful for the funding that the Government provided, the vast majority—nearly 90%—came from private donors. I must confess that I gnashed my teeth rather when the Australian members of our highly expert team told me that a similar exercise to rid Macquarie Island off Tasmania of its similarly introduced rats, mice and, in this case, rabbits, in order to protect its native biodiversity, had been paid for totally by the Tasmanian and Australian Governments.
The second point that I want to raise has been raised previously—the Darwin Initiative, which is a fine example of UK leadership on tackling global biodiversity conservation. It has a very positive profile in many parts of the world and has had a significant impact well beyond its relatively small size. However, it has kind of undertaken a bit of mission creep, in my view. It is now rather more focused on DfID and development-related criteria than on biodiversity conservation per se. Can we have Darwin back, please, and can we have it focused on long-term sustainable development and biodiversity conservation rather than short-term and reactive policies?
My third point is that biodiversity conservation is a bit like a charity—it needs to begin at home. We could take the view that if every nation in the world looked after its own biodiversity, we would not have a problem. So I ask the Minister about the Government’s commitment to doing their bit for global biodiversity by looking after the biodiversity in the UK that we uniquely are responsible for. We have heard of a number of assessments of biodiversity in the UK, and the 2013 State of Nature report found that 60% of UK species that have been studied had declined in recent decades and 31% had strongly declined. More than one in 10 species could disappear from the UK altogether.
I commend to the Minister the conservation NGOs report Response for Nature, which outlines what needs to be done. We are all looking forward to the Government’s 25-year environmental plan, which I understand will include biodiversity conservation issues. I hope that we might lure the Minister into giving us some insight into what it might contain and how the Government are getting on with their preparations.
Although vision for the future is important, I urge the Minister that the plan needs to be more than just a vision; it needs to have some teeth. It needs to commit clearly to actions for government and to outline actions for businesses, landowners, local government, civil society and the public. It needs to have concrete, numerically expressed goals that can be measured and monitored, and five-year milestones with accountability and reporting to Parliament. In respect of monitoring biodiversity, can I urge the Minister to ensure that the monitoring functions currently carried out by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee do not suffer in the spending review, as is rumoured? If we cannot count and monitor our biodiversity, how will we know if we are winning?
Last but not least, the Government need to defend and implement the laws that conserve nature, particularly the European birds and habitats directives which are currently under review. It would be a grievous blow for biodiversity across the European Union if these directives were weakened. Can I ask the Minister tell the Committee where the Government stand on the defence of these directives? We were somewhat concerned that when nine EU environmental Ministers, including the German and French Ministers, called recently for the directives to be safeguarded, the name of the UK environment Minister was not attached to that call.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, talked about the IUCN Red List. My very good friend Jane Smart, who is the director of the IUCN global species programme, said that the IUCN Red List is the voice of biodiversity telling us where we need to focus our attention most urgently. If we look at that list, biodiversity is not telling us where to focus our attention most urgently; it is screaming for help.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for initiating this debate today, and indeed to all noble Lords who have spoken. Between us, around the Committee, we have highlighted some alarming truths, as well as making a compelling case for action.
We know that extinction is a fact of life. Species have been evolving and dying out since our creation but in the past there has been a rhythm to it. There has been a rhythm to evolution in which nature adjusts and rebalances as those changes take place. What we have identified this afternoon, which is different and alarming, is the extent to which that process has speeded up over the last 100 years, almost entirely as a result of human activity. As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed out, the scale of population growth, and our drain on natural resources, is becoming increasingly unsustainable. In 1950 the global population was 2.4 billion; it is now more than 7 billion and continuing to rise. We are, therefore, outgrowing the planet and misusing the limited resources available to us.
The resulting degradation of biodiversity is breathtaking in its impact. Again, we have heard evidence of that. The noble Lord referred to the latest report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List. Undoubtedly, the thousands of new species that it has identified as being threatened with extinction really hammer home the case for action.
Knowing that I have limited time to speak this afternoon, I will pick up three issues that echo many of the themes that others have touched on. The first is climate change. Despite a few hardy climate change deniers, I think that there is a growing consensus that the earth is warming up as a result of increased CO2 emissions. If current trends continue, it is predicted that the earth could be 1 degree warmer by 2025 and 3 degrees warmer by 2050. Already the IUCN report highlights the loss of Arctic sea ice, which has been declining at a linear rate of 14% per decade since 1979.
This not only affects the survival of native species, such as polar bears, but becomes a major global environmental threat. Rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions, such as drought, flooding and hurricanes, will lead to huge population shifts as well as damaging biodiversity. This is why the outcome of the Paris talks is crucial. Countries such as China and India are already beginning to face up to their responsibilities to cut CO2, but we must show leadership as well. That is why it was so disappointing that the Minister’s colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, chose to put the emphasis on the growth of gas, rather than renewable energy, in her announcement last week. Can the Minister, therefore, clarify what our negotiating position will be and whether the UK is committed to meeting its existing 2020 targets, as well as going further to reduce CO2?
Secondly, I want to talk about deforestation, another issue which has been touched on already. We know that it is happening globally and that attempts to control it have so far been frustratingly slow. As the noble Lord pointed out, it matters not only because of the rich biodiversity in areas such as the Amazon rainforest, but also because forests play a critical role in regulating climate. Forests are cleared for many reasons, not least the pressures of expanding populations, but they are also cleared to meet the West’s obsessive consumption of unsustainable foods: cattle ranching to meet demand for beef products in the Amazon; the planting of huge coffee plantations in Central America; the growing of coffee, cocoa and palm oil for export in Papua New Guinea; and the production of bananas and tobacco in Colombia. I know that we could all name many more. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that further action is needed, on a global level, to secure the future of the forests, and what are the Government doing to negotiate international environment and trade agreements that will deliver this in a meaningful way? What are the Government doing, too, to encourage investment, such as that promoted by Fairtrade, in more sustainable livelihoods for local people, which will make those forests more sustainable? Does he agree that at the UK level we could do a great deal more to improve the environmental labelling of products, as well as enforcing the ban on illegally-traded goods, to make good consumers of us all?
Thirdly, I would like to say something about the decline in marine species. The World Wildlife Fund report, Living Blue Planet, published in September, shows a decline of 49% in the global marine population between 1970 and 2012. As WWF points out, this is a disaster for both ecosystems and the people in the developing world who depend heavily on the oceans’ resources. Overfishing is a major source of the problem, with levels of some food fish, such as tuna, mackerel and bonito falling by 74%. Again, this is being exacerbated by the impact of climate change, with rising sea levels and increasing acidity levels further weakening the marine ecosystem.
Like the forests, the oceans are an essential part of our life support system, generating half the world’s oxygen and absorbing almost a third of its carbon dioxide. We cannot afford to take this contribution for granted. Clearly one solution is the creation of a global network of marine protected areas—we have heard some examples of how those are developing this afternoon and they would certainly help to allow habitats to recover. Of course, we already have our own network of protected areas around UK shores, which was introduced by the last Labour Government. Will the Minister update us on the rollout of these sites and confirm whether the 23 sites in the second tranche in 2016 are still on course? Will he clarify what negotiations are taking place at an international level to ensure that this model of marine protection is being adopted more widely?
I would also like to say something about the UK’s biodiversity strategy. Like my noble friend Lady Young, I am concerned about the progress being made at home. The department’s Biodiversity 2020 strategy set out some useful priorities and planned actions, but, four years on, I wonder how the Government think they are doing on meeting those targets. The Minister will be aware that the Environmental Audit Committee last year published an environmental scorecard on its progress, using a traffic light system. None of the areas assessed received a green rating, and on air pollution, biodiversity, flooding and coastal protection the Government received a red rating, showing that things had deteriorated. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that.
I have one final query. Like my noble friend Lady Young, I do not expect the Minister to give us a sneak preview of the Chancellor’s Statement tomorrow, but there are concerns about developments. I would be grateful if he could reassure us that, in proposing significant cuts, his Secretary of State has not also damaged the UK’s capacity to meet its own targets, as well as its EU and UN commitments. Put simply, if we are not seen to be rising to the biodiversity challenge, we really cannot expect the poorer developing nations to do so. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I have been very much looking forward to this debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra on securing it. The Government recognise how important biodiversity is, and the breadth of today’s debate has demonstrated the scale of the challenges that we face.
For many in this country, the word “biodiversity” conjures up awe-inspiring images from natural history programmes of majestic species like the tiger or the elephant. We are aware of the global impact of the large-scale degradation of an ecosystem like the Amazon rainforest, but when we talk about biodiversity we actually refer to the variety of all life on earth. It includes all animals and plants, including bugs, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out at the outset.
Climate change, deforestation, the pollution of land and seas, the overexploitation of natural resources and the introduction of invasive species into pristine environments are all major threats to global biodiversity and they are all down to us, the human race. The noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, my noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, all highlighted that in their exceptional speeches. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred specifically to the impact of climate change on global biodiversity. A global climate agreement is the only way that we can deliver the scale of action required. That is why the Government are committed to working with other countries to secure an ambitious global climate deal in Paris in the coming weeks.
A threat to biodiversity is a threat to us all. Our survival depends upon biodiversity. The natural environment provides us with clean water, clean air, fuel, shelter, food and trade, but we can jeopardise all this if we do not act responsibly to protect it.
On the positive side, much good work is already being done to mitigate the negative impact that we have had, and continue to have, on our planet’s biodiversity. The UK is often at the forefront of these efforts through engagement in global agreements like the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which provide a framework of evidence and best practice as well as setting the common goals we are all striving for. Indeed, the Prime Minister and other world leaders met in New York in September to agree the global goals. These are ambitious and they recognise that biodiversity is key to the survival of life on earth.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed to the devastating impacts caused by species loss and the excellent work being done by the International Union for Conservation of Nature through its Red List. The UK Government are taking the lead on addressing species loss internationally. The noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, specifically mentioned the plight of elephants. We have sought to galvanise action on illegal wildlife trade through the organisation of the London conference last year and we are committed to working with international partners to tackle this abhorrent trade. We are investing in projects, including anti-poaching training for rangers, training for high court judges and programmes such as the Elephant Protection Initiative, through which nine African countries have already committed to a 10-year moratorium on domestic ivory sales. However, we clearly need to do very much more.
We provide direct funding for projects in developing countries through our Darwin Initiative and Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund. The strength of these schemes is that projects leave a strong legacy behind once the project is complete, empowering local communities to protect their natural environment in the future. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Blencathra will be embarrassed but we are in his debt because it was my noble friend who in 1992 launched the Darwin Initiative and was our lead negotiator at the Rio summit, so much good has come of that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, mentioned our overseas territories, which are home to many species and ecosystems that are found nowhere else in the world. Since 2012 our dedicated overseas territories environment and climate change grant scheme, Darwin Plus, has funded 40 projects. I was delighted that the noble Baroness mentioned the South Georgia Heritage Trust project. I have just read an absolutely fascinating book on that. I cannot begin to express my delight on hearing that the endangered South Georgia pipit appears to be returning. I very much hope that the five-year quest to eradicate rats from South Georgia will continue to be a success. I hope that the noble Baroness will pass on our considerable thanks for the tenacity and devotion of those involved. Having seen the photographs, I have seen the amusing events that can arise but also the extremely hard work that they put in.
I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about declines in marine biodiversity. This Government have also been very clear about the importance of marine biodiversity and the need for marine protected areas throughout the world’s oceans. That is why the Government are committed to ensuring that action is taken at the UN on this matter, as well as committing to deliver a “blue belt” of marine protected areas around our coasts and in our overseas territories. The blue belt will help protect threatened species and the marine habitats they rely on. Indeed, 16% of UK waters are already protected in marine protected areas. We established a marine protected area around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands covering more than 1 million square kilometres, which is equivalent to four times the size of the United Kingdom. Earlier this year we announced further plans to establish a marine reserve around the Pitcairn Islands, covering 830,000 square kilometres, to which my noble friend Lord Blencathra referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked specifically about marine conservation zones and I am pleased to confirm that the second tranche of these is on course to be established in January 2016 and a third tranche of sites will follow. Overfishing is a serious threat to marine life. At the December negotiations on EU fishing quotas, the Government will continue to press for scientific advice to be followed and to meet our commitment of reaching maximum sustainable yield by 2020 at the latest.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to the essential importance of forests and the need to tackle deforestation. My noble friend Lord Blencathra highlighted what rainforests offer mankind. Indeed, they are the most biologically diverse ecosystems on the land. That is why we have made it illegal to place illegally-logged timber on the UK market and, through the UK International Climate Fund, have invested extensively in projects which address deforestation and forest restoration in developing countries.
We are equally committed to improving the quality and extent of wildlife habitats in England, for which Defra is responsible. Our Natural Environment White Paper sets out a bold vision for a resilient and connected natural environment, providing services vital to our economic prosperity and social well-being. Our Biodiversity 2020 strategy is taking forward that vision.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on the Government’s progress. The Government have a strong record on environmental protection and we believe that the committee’s assessment is unduly negative. Clearly there is more work to be done and I hope that when the Environmental Audit Committee reports again, some of the work that we are undertaking will bear even greater fruit. We are committed to continuing implementation of our Biodiversity 2020 strategy, working to protect wildlife habitats and species both on land and at sea. We have set in motion the creation of 100,000 hectares of priority habitats such as arable field margins, wetlands and woodlands. We have also maintained 95% of our Sites of Special Scientific Interest—our most important sites—in favourable or recovering condition.
My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to the Natural Capital Committee. There is a key commitment to the work that we wish to undertake with that committee on how England’s natural assets can be better protected and improved. We are committed to developing a 25-year plan that will set out our ambition for a healthy and resilient natural environment that benefits both our economy and our nation. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, specifically mentioned this. We are on course. Three ministerial events have taken place last month and this month and we are engaging with more than 150 organisations. We wish to develop a framework for publication early next year and a full plan will be published late in 2016. I will make sure that all noble Lords who have engaged in this debate are part of that process, because it is important.
We have created a national pollinator strategy—a 10-year plan setting out our commitment to improving the status of the 1,500 or so pollinating insect species in England. That was a point that my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, raised. It is immensely important and I am privileged to be part of the Defra team that is pushing forward with this. It is about working with all stakeholders and a huge number of volunteers. It is about, for instance, engaging online with about 30,000 beekeepers who will be our eyes and ears on these matters, so it is very important.
We are committed to planting 11 million trees during this Parliament. That is the equivalent of nearly 25,000 acres of new woodland. We must also tackle invasive non-native species. We are the first country in Europe to develop a comprehensive strategy to address threats to our native wildlife from invasive non-native species. We are faced with many and varied challenges in safeguarding the biodiversity of this country and internationally.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Young, alluded to the Chancellor’s Statement tomorrow. They are generous enough to know that I could not possibly provide any detail. In fact, I do not know any detail. However, I can assure noble Lords that the Government and Defra are committed to protecting biodiversity domestically and globally for generations to come. We clearly cannot do this alone. Many groups and individuals from conservation charities are supported by members of the public and volunteers. Farmers, local government, landowners and developers all need to make a vital contribution to protecting biodiversity. My noble friend Lord Selborne, in referring to the work of generations of recorders in the UK, said that their work should be acknowledged.
I was particularly grateful, as I am responsible for Kew and Wakehurst, that my noble friend mentioned their hugely important work. The Millennium Seed Bank at Wakehurst is a truly exceptional gem of these isles and we should be very proud of what it does. We should also be very proud that this country has a great system of volunteers and partners, and I particularly acknowledge the help that Defra receives from them. We could not do it without them.
There is a fight; the fight is on and we will need to continue that fight. Wherever we are in the world we each have a responsibility to look after the planet on which we live and to safeguard it for future generations. I believe that the debate has been exceptional. It has been an exceptional example of the contribution that noble Lords today have made personally to this quest. I sometimes regret that these gatherings in the Moses Room are a rather rarefied contribution because noble Lords in the Chamber should hear the contributions of those who have made such a personal commitment to biodiversity globally and in this country. All of us genuinely care about this issue. We will all have our differences and our nuances. There may be the odd political element to pushing the Government to achieve their targets. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is absolutely right. We must have targets. That is the benchmark from which we in Defra and in government can judge how well we are doing. That is what your Lordships and the wider country can see. I want to ensure and instil in noble Lords that we have a department that cares about these things. I work with Ministers who care absolutely passionately about the biodiversity of these islands and the commitment that we have to help in the wider world because we have great opportunities and good fortune in this country. I am most grateful for this debate today.
House of Lords
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Murphy of Torfaen
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Hain
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Domestic Violence
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many convictions have been obtained under the laws relating to stalking and whether they are satisfied with the adequacy of legislative powers to prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the latest figures show that 495 convictions were obtained under the new stalking laws in 2014. Legislative powers in this important area are kept under constant review.
Baroness Nye
I thank the Minister for that information. It is clear, however, that without effective training and a cultural change in the criminal justice system, perpetrators will still not be brought to justice. It is in areas of the country where there has been training that the law is most effective. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what investment has been made in the training of prosecutors. Will he also say why there are still no sentencing guidelines for stalking, and when these could be expected?
Lord Bates
The sentencing guidelines are an independent matter for the Sentencing Council, but I will certainly look into that point. In terms of the training, a great deal of work has gone on through the College of Policing, which is the vehicle by which most training is provided. The Crown Prosecution Service has also done a great deal of work, particularly on encouraging more prosecutions under the stalking laws rather than under harassment legislation, which was there before, so that we get a better picture of the nature of the crime. But we continue to look at this important area.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Is the Minister aware of the substantial growth in cyberstalking over recent months and years? Is he satisfied that adequate powers are available, under anti-stalking legislation or other legislation, and will he make it his business to link up with those in the police force who are quite concerned about this?
Lord Bates
The National Crime Agency takes the lead in this area, particularly on child exploitation. A great deal of work has been going on in schools, pointing out the dangers of online abuse. Of course, we took legislative action in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, when we introduced the clause on revenge pornography. This area is one that my noble friend Lady Shields, the Minister for Internet Safety and Security, is very focused on and is having conversations with internet service providers about.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be very aware of the effect of domestic violence on children and young people. What are the Government doing to ensure that their rights and emotional needs are being met during the proper but difficult process of prosecution for domestic violence incidents?
Lord Bates
We have now introduced a system where we have independent domestic violence advisers. They have a critical role to play because, in a very chaotic, difficult and emotionally stressful situation, they can signpost people to the help that they need, particularly the families who are victims in this area.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, during the passage of the stalking law reforms in your Lordships’ House, there was considerable debate about how the CPS could be encouraged not to use the harassment law as an easy way to get a conviction. The Minister has outlined that he believes that more cases are being defined as stalking, but the opposite is true according to the press. How can the Government ensure that the CPS is held accountable to make sure that stalking cases are taken as such and not through the easy win of harassment?
Lord Bates
That is a very good point and comes back to the earlier point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nye. A consultation is taking place between the CPS and the College of Policing, as well as with Paladin and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which do so much valuable work in this area, to see what further training could be provided. When you look at the figures and see that there are 9,180 prosecutions under harassment and 676 under stalking, clearly there is still further work to be done to make sure that people are being prosecuted in the right area.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the Question also relates to domestic violence, and the same point on training and cultural change applies to the new domestic violence offence of coercive control, the campaign in respect of which was led by Paladin, Women’s Aid and the Sara Charlton Foundation. If I am right in saying that it has not happened already, could the Minister say, first, when the new domestic violence offence of coercive control will be introduced? Secondly, what action is being taken to ensure that the necessary training is being and will be provided throughout the police and the judicial system, including for prosecutors, judges and magistrates, to ensure that the new law—including the reasons for it and the psychological intimidation and control it is intended to address—is fully and effectively understood and that it is used and applied as intended in all relevant parts of the country? The evidence, including that from the new stalking laws, suggests that inadequate and incomplete training about new offences leads to cases not being pursued or to unduly lenient sentences because the seriousness of the new offence is not fully understood or recognised.
Lord Bates
That is a fair point. We have pledged that the coercive and controlling behaviour provision in the Serious Crime Act will come into force by the end of the year. It will be in force by the end of the year and training will be provided alongside it. On the other point, about ensuring the right response and that people are trained for it, Garry Shewan, the assistant chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, who is the national policing lead for stalking and harassment, has a very important role to play in co-ordinating the wider police response to this important crime.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, what measures are being taken to assist Muslim women to access the reporting facilities? A great deal of domestic violence goes on in households against women who do not feel at ease with some of the representatives who are available for them to access.
Lord Bates
There is a particular group called Imkaan which works in this area with BME communities and they are represented on the national oversight group which the Home Secretary set up to advise her on improving her response across government to domestic violence.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the Justice Select Committee found that more than a third of the victims of domestic violence were unable to get legal aid because they could not provide evidence that such violence occurred within two years of their application. The Government responded with only a very minor reform. Will they now review the situation with a view to extending the time limits and, if not, why not?
Lord Bates
Certainly in relation to legal aid there is a merits test to go through. I understand that in cases of domestic violence there is a more generous provision than in other areas. There is an important new provision coming out in which we are going to refresh the cross-government strategy on tackling violence against women and girls. That will include some elements of new legislative responses which are available and being considered by the Government.
Legal Aid
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are satisfied that the Legal Aid Agency’s evaluation of tenders for the new duty solicitor contracts was fairly and effectively conducted.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, we are. The Legal Aid Agency followed a robust and fair process in assessing duty tender bids. The assessment process was subject to careful moderation and management at all stages, including independent validation. All staff who assess the bids received comprehensive training to ensure transparent, consistent and fair treatment of all bids.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, two whistleblowers involved in this assessment process have now said publicly that there were too few staff, many of them virtually untrained agency temps with no relevant experience, and that assessment of the bids and moderation of the assessments were subjected to highly unreasonable time targets. Now that this has led to 100-plus legal challenges and calls from the Law Society for a full and proper investigation, what do the Government propose to do to review the process in view of the Answer just given by the noble Lord?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord is right that this has been the subject of legal challenges, just as the bidding process itself was subject to an unsuccessful judicial review. There have been individual legal claims under public procurement regulations and a judicial review in relation to the process. It is inappropriate for me to comment in detail about matters which are the subject of litigation. However, I can say that about 19% of the staff were temporary. The Government are satisfied that these staff were thoroughly adequately trained and that what they were asked to do was reasonable in the time afforded to them.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the criminal duty tender policy, which seems to have gone so wrong, was agreed by both parties in the coalition in 2013? Can he tell the House the current estimate of the eventual cost of the litigation now under way and when he expects that litigation to conclude? Finally, is it not well past time to scrap this ridiculous policy and begin negotiations again with the Law Society and the criminal law solicitors’ groups on a more sensible and sustainable way forward?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord seems to suggest that the Law Society was not enthusiastic about the process. In fact, in its response it said:
“The Society agrees, for the reasons given below, that change is needed in the procurement of criminal defence services. There is good evidence that the existing market is unlikely to be sustainable in the longer term and that this represents a significant risk for the integrity of the system”.
The Government were trying to ensure that there was adequate representation on the duty provider basis, that this was more efficiently provided and that there was a fair system for making sure that taxpayers’ money was properly spent.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Law Society but we all have an interest in ensuring access to justice. As my noble friend Lord Marks mentioned, two whistleblowers have pointed out how flawed the process was, In addition, there is the potential for mass litigation involved in this duty solicitor procurement. Should not the MoJ stop trying to brazen this out, simply scrap this procurement and start again?
Lord Faulks
No, that presumes the outcome of the litigation. Disappointed contractors may well feel it necessary to challenge and decide it appropriate, as is their privilege, to use the legal process. We have not yet had the legal process, nor do we know what the result will be. There have already been some preliminary hearings, but we are some way from a full judgment. Both the individuals were employed as commissioning assistants in a junior role. We are in no doubt that what happened was a perfectly appropriate way of assessing the competence of the solicitors and their appropriateness for the contract.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
Have the Government received any representations from the Law Society in the light of this Question? Will the Minister signify how the Law Society has reacted? I am in accord with what he has said, but I think it is important that he should be more accurate about it.
Lord Faulks
Of course we listen to what the Law Society says: the Law Society represents solicitors and I am sure that a number of them are disappointed at the outcome, although they will still have an opportunity for own-client contracts and as delivery agents for those solicitors who have a duty provider contract. I should perhaps reassure the House that the Legal Aid Agency has monitored and will continue to monitor the quality of the delivery of services through its well-established audit and peer-review programmes.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
Will the Minister answer my noble friend Lord Bach’s first question about the role of coalition members of the Government? Did the Liberal Democrats support the policy when they were in government?
Lord Faulks
I am not sure whether the Liberal Democrats supported it. The fact is that it is government policy and we are pursuing it. Whether they supported it tacitly or had reservations seems beside the point if the process is fair, as we say that it was.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, it is clear that this has been a very faulty process. I give an example. A very reputable organisation with quality and community knowledge in London has been ignored and not appointed in any way. The work has been given to firms in Stafford and Leicester. It is surely ridiculous when a firm based in London has a great reputation that work for London should be given to firms in Stafford and Leicestershire.
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord picks on one disappointed solicitor. No doubt a number of solicitors are pleased with the result and feel that it is an adequate response. I fear that some solicitors will be disappointed, but the noble Lord will realise that it is necessary to effect some consolidation—apart from anything else, because there has been a significant drop in the crime rate, which is good for most of the population, although perhaps less good for some solicitors who rely on crime for their living. I am glad to say that the crime rate began to drop in 2007, when the party opposite was in government. It has continued to drop and is now at its lowest rate since 1970.
Northern Powerhouse
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have for strengthening the role and powers of town and parish councils, particularly as part of the northern powerhouse.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name, and remind the House of my local government interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the northern powerhouse is empowering local areas through devolution, bringing decision-making closer to local people. It is right that local areas are able to involve their towns and parishes as they see fit. The Government are providing additional support to those towns and parishes wishing to exercise the community rights provided by the Localism Act 2011: for example, developing neighbourhood plans, listing assets of community value and running services using the right to challenge.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, all over the north of England there are small towns and villages with town and parish councils in which the northern powerhouse is no more than a remote slogan and of little relevance or meaning. At the same time, local services are being slashed, taken apart and closed down. What advice would the Minister give on behalf of the Government to towns and parishes, and what action should they take in those circumstances?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the northern powerhouse and devolution should not be remote to any area of the country in which devolution is taking place. Whether it is in transport or in increases in the local jobs market—and actually, the north-west has seen the biggest employment growth of any region in the last few years—local people should be able to feel the effects of the northern powerhouse and devolution. Through the Localism Act, local areas such as town and parish council areas should be able to feel the empowerment more than ever.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, under the Government’s devolution proposals, there will be areas of the country, like Lancashire, with local parish and town councils, district councils, county councils and combined authorities with elected mayors. In the light of tomorrow’s spending review and the forthcoming local government settlement—in which, like his predecessor, the Secretary of State appears to have been first across the Treasury’s door to offer up local government for cuts—what assurances can the Minister give that this pyramidal structure will not be used to house the mummified remains of effective local government?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, devolution means empowering communities, from local authorities right down to town and parish councils, and even local neighbourhoods. I do not think—in terms of what the Government have been doing, certainly through devolution and some of their plans for the northern powerhouse—that anybody could accuse local government of not being at the forefront of this Government’s policy.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the northern powerhouse has great potential to bring social and economic benefit to many people, but it is fundamental from the very start that we embed it in the rural communities. Micro-businesses employing fewer than 10 people make a very significant contribution to the rural economy, yet previous approaches to regional development tended to ignore or sideline the rural dimension of it. Will the noble Lord the Minister assure the House that, with the northern powerhouse and other devolved areas, there will be a specific, focused and relevant approach to providing resources for small rural businesses?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am getting quite fond of the right reverend Prelate calling me “the noble Lord the Minister” and I take no offence whatever. He is absolutely right, and he has brought up the point about rural communities before. Of course, in many areas where we see devolution, we see rural communities. Most authorities—in Greater Manchester, for example—have rural areas such as Rochdale, Oldham, Stockport and even Trafford, so rural communities are very important. He is absolutely right to point out that they should not be left behind, and, with some of the strengthened powers that central government has given them, they should be able to achieve this.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, a recent BBC-commissioned survey showed that two-thirds of people in the north had either not heard of the northern powerhouse or knew nothing about it. Given the deep cuts to local council budgets expected tomorrow, does the Minister agree that it has become essential to produce a strategic investment plan for the northern powerhouse area in order to give the public confidence that the northern powerhouse is a reality?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, they might not have heard of the northern powerhouse but—as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—they certainly will have felt the effects of it. In Yorkshire, for example, more jobs have been created than in the whole of France put together. As I also said to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, there has been, in the north-west, the highest employment growth, and in the north-east, the highest rate of business start-ups. Whether people label that as the northern powerhouse, or just say that life feels a bit better, they should certainly feel the benefits. In terms of a strategy, we have a simple one: to enable areas of the north to maximise their economic potential.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that during the last recess, I went to see my tailor in Ossett? While talking to other people who were shopping at that particular retailer, I felt that there was a great vibrancy about the local town council there, and what it was doing. Also, although Bedfordshire is not in the northern powerhouse, as far as I am concerned the town councillors there do a first-class job as well.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for that question. I was not aware that he had gone to Oxford in the recess—perhaps I should have been. He is absolutely right: town councils now feel very much more empowered in driving forward the future of their communities. So I am not surprised to hear that the particular town council he talked about was feeling very upbeat.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister explain the strange anomaly that seems to have arisen where her Tory Government grant devolution to local authorities, the northern powerhouse, et cetera, while the devolved Scottish Government are taking power away from local authorities in Scotland?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Scottish Government will have to answer to their electors in due course.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister please ensure that she assesses whether the allocation of resources tomorrow means that counties such as my home county of Lancashire get equal treatment with other county areas in the country—even those counties which happen to have the Prime Minister as one of their MPs?
Prison Service: Trans Prisoners
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the death of Vicky Thompson, whether they will review the Prison Service’s treatment of trans prisoners.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I offer my condolences to Vicky Thompson’s family and friends. Every death in custody is a tragedy and we are committed to reducing their numbers. While investigations are ongoing it is inappropriate for me to comment on the circumstances of Miss Thompson’s death. The policy on the care and management of prisoners who live or propose to live in a gender other than one assigned at birth is currently under review.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Recent events have shown that placing trans women in male estates is dangerous. Does the Minister agree that trans prisoners should be housed in the estate of their acquired gender in the first instance and moved to another estate only following a thorough investigation that rules out all other safe alternatives?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, Prison Service Instruction 07/2011 sets out the National Offender Management Service’s policy on the care and management of prisoners in the circumstances outlined by the noble Baroness. It suggests that, in the first place, somebody’s gender, whether their original gender or one that they have chosen under the Gender Recognition Act, should be reflected in where they are housed. Nevertheless, there is a degree of discretion allowed to the Prison Service, which it exercises, to make sure that someone in that situation is treated with appropriate care, consideration and sensitivity.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, mindful of the review of the current policy, what urgent steps will the Minister take to review the location of all trans people in prison and to move them to appropriate prisons according to their acquired gender, to avoid a repeat of the tragedy that befell Vicky Thompson?
Lord Faulks
The important thing is that there is no generalisation here. It is important to assess each individual prisoner according to the stage they are at and their particular case. It might be a diagnosis or they may have fully realised their gender transformation. That individual assessment is carried out by the Prison Service, involving the assistance of psychological services and healthcare experts. It is after that assessment that they should be assigned an appropriate part of a prison.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the policies he just outlined apply in young offender institutions? I believe that Miss Thompson was 21 when she died and assume that she was in an adult prison, but I think it is common knowledge that people tend to become aware of their transgender nature when puberty emerges. Therefore, young offenders are particularly vulnerable and require particular care.
Lord Faulks
The noble and learned Lord makes an important point. I assure him that the policy applies throughout the prison estate and the youth estate. I entirely accept that these matters sometimes occur at an earlier stage, before somebody becomes part of the adult custodial estate. Of course, there may be many other aspects that need careful consideration apart from the problems with gender. Those can provide a real challenge to those working in the prison.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Can the Minister confirm that the guidelines to which he has just referred, PSI 07/2011, had an expiry date of 14 March 2015? Therefore, there has been an eight-month gap when those guidelines are no longer applicable because they are past their expiry date. If those guidelines are being updated, what open invitation has been given to trans support groups to help the Government update the guidelines?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord makes what he may think is a clever point, but I refer him to paragraph 2.6 of the instruction system, on “The Approval and Implementation of Policy and Instructions”, which provides as follows:
“Regardless of expiry dates, instructions remain in force until specifically cancelled, marked ‘obsolete’ or replaced and removed from the Intranet”.
That policy does not fall into that category; it remains current.
Of more substance—of course it is very important that in formulating any change to the Prison Service instruction we take account of the trans community’s views; we are doing so, as my ministerial colleague explained in answering a question of a similar nature to the House of Commons last Friday.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the whole House will join the Minister in expressing condolences to the family of Vicky Thompson, and also welcome the Government’s response to this tragic case and look forward to the outcome of the review that has been announced. There have been 186 suicides in prisons in the year to September, and a 21% rise in self-harm. Those statistics reflect the pressure on prisons and staff, echoed in the latest report on Feltham young offender institution. Therefore, will the Government’s review extend to the size of the prison population, and will the training of prison staff—the briefest of any comparable country—be substantially extended in time and depth?
Lord Faulks
I do not wish to pre-empt what may be considered appropriate to be considered under the review. Certainly, training would be an extremely important factor. The training has been extended to cover a specific module for prison officers to consider equality provisions, which takes into account particularly the protected characteristics of transgender prisoners. The scope of the review will embrace all things that are relevant to make sure that the Prison Service treats such prisoners appropriately. The original Prison Service instruction is an impressive document but, of course, there is room for continual improvement, and we will endeavour to arrive at an appropriate destination.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Does the Minister recognise that one difficulty under the existing system, with giving priority to legal gender, is that trans people who turn out to be offenders may be the least likely to apply for gender recognition certificates under the 2004 Act? Will the government review take that into account?
Lord Faulks
The decision to apply for a certificate is, of course, an intensely personal one. What is important is that a prisoner, or indeed anybody, should know that they have the right to do so—but it would be entirely inappropriate to in any way place pressure on somebody to go through that process. The matter is one that the Act rightly treats with great care in terms of protection of data and all the sensitive matters that it is necessary to take into account when making a momentous decision of this sort.
Hereditary Peers By-Election
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Scotland Bill
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is the most successful multinational state the world has ever known. On 18 September last year, people in Scotland voted in record numbers and by a clear and decisive majority to keep together our United Kingdom. However, last year’s referendum showed that nothing can be taken for granted; our union is precious, to be sustained and cherished day in, day out. There is no national forum more committed to protecting and strengthening the union than your Lordships’ House. Time and again the United Kingdom has shown its resilience and capacity for renewal in order to meet the needs and aspirations of successive generations. This Scotland Bill sits within that tradition. The Bill balances the strong desire of people in Scotland for more decisions to be taken in Scotland, closer to those they affect, while retaining the strength and security of remaining part of the larger UK.
I have only been in this House a short time, but long enough to appreciate the wealth of constitutional knowledge and experience in all parts of the House. This wealth is evident in the quality of those listed to speak today. I look forward to hearing what I know will be thoughtful and well-informed contributions, in particular the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem.
Your Lordships have already made valuable contributions, including in the recently published reports of the Constitution Committee and the Economic Affairs Committees. From the outset of this debate, I want to recognise and acknowledge with respect the strong feelings already expressed, both about process and substance. I accept that the process has been unorthodox. Then again, the events of last September were unprecedented. The very future of the United Kingdom was at stake. In those circumstances, no stone was left unturned in the defence and preservation of our country. Who among us can say honestly that, faced with the same circumstances and responsibilities of national leadership, we would not have responded with the same sense of urgency and determination?
The task now is to help Scotland move on, building on our shared values and experiences, to forge anew the close bonds of kinship and friendship and sense of common purpose and endeavour that is the glue of any successful nation state. In rising to the challenge, we have a clear choice. We can continue either to pump things up, or we can try to calm things down. I confess to being a firm supporter of the second approach, not least because I am certain that those who want separation would prefer the first.
I hope that we all share a strong desire to work together to bring our nation together, and for those of us who believe passionately in the union to be united in delivering, through this Bill, the promises made to the people of Scotland.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
Is the Minister saying that the vow was the way in which the referendum was won? My view is that the vow was not necessary; the no vote would have won anyway.
Lord Dunlop
Fundamentally, I think it was the economic arguments that were decisive in the referendum. When the country is at stake, you want to do everything possible to maximise the no vote. That was what was done.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Could my noble friend confirm that, according to the article written by the editor of the Daily Record, the vow was all his idea and was put together by Gordon Brown and the editor of the Daily Record as a publicity stunt?
Lord Dunlop
I am not quite clear whether he is saying that it was my idea or Gordon Brown’s. The key point about the vow is that three UK party leaders agreed it.
On the night of the referendum, as I waited for the results to come in, I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean had to say on the BBC’s “Scotland Decides” programme. He cut straight to the chase, as he so often does:
“The three party leaders made a promise—which I think they’ll find very difficult to deliver—but it has to be delivered”.
I agree with him—no one said it would be easy. Indeed, I can safely say to this House in all humility that, today, I am gaining some appreciation of what my noble friend foresaw. This Bill is the fulfilment of that promise. It has to be delivered. Yes, there has been scepticism. Would all parties come to the negotiating table? Would they stay? Would someone walk out before a deal was struck? Could all the milestones be met? For the first time in the history of devolution, all five of Scotland’s main political parties came together, stayed and reached a unique agreement. Every one of the milestones have been met on time.
Here, I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin. Hot on the heels of leading the fabulous Glasgow Commonwealth Games, he skilfully steered the process to a successful conclusion. We owe him a debt of gratitude. It is good to see him in his place today and back in rude health.
Much has been said about the Smith commission reaching an agreement of such great constitutional significance after only an eight-week process, yet the agreement was the culmination not of an eight-week process but a four-year process which started in 2011 with the election of a majority SNP Government. So the Smith commission agreement did not emerge from a vacuum. It emerged from four years of lively constitutional discussion and debate in Scotland, which was informed by the body of evidence compiled by the Calman commission, and from a discussion punctuated by the publication of numerous reports from Scottish Labour’s devolution committee, the home rule commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, alongside academic and think tank contributions, such as Reform Scotland’s devo plus and IPPR’s devo more reports. Indeed, I believe the Smith agreement was made possible because common ground had already been established by this body of preceding work.
Delivering the agreement in full is therefore a manifesto commitment of not only the Conservative Party but the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat party and the Scottish National Party. So this Scotland Bill is not just a manifesto Bill; it is a super-manifesto Bill. Its provisions were agreed in the other place, where the Government listened to the debate, responded to the scrutiny and tabled more than 100 amendments on Report, and where the Bill was passed unopposed at Third Reading.
The Daily Record declares its famous vow met, and Gordon Brown says that the Smith commission recommendations, which arose from the vow, are delivered. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, has confirmed that the Bill honours what was agreed by the five parties. “A promise made is a promise kept” is surely an absolute precondition for earning the trust of the people of Scotland. Ahead of next year’s Scottish Parliament elections, the debate in Scotland is increasingly turning to how the powers are used, as it certainly must.
This Bill is not simply about keeping a promise. It is about bringing a better balance to Scotland’s devolution settlement and strengthening the union as a result. The Scottish Parliament was created with extensive spending powers—its budget today is around £30 billion— but little responsibility for raising the funds it wants to spend. The result is a fiscal gap and an accountability deficit. Before the Scotland Act 2012 is fully implemented, the Scottish Parliament controls almost 60% of public expenditure in Scotland yet is responsible for raising only some 10% of its funding. Once this Bill comes into effect, the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for raising more than 50% of what it spends. Holyrood will be transformed from a pocket-money Parliament, reliant on an annual cheque from the Treasury, to the powerhouse Parliament the people of Scotland want it to be. If the Scottish Government want a higher level of public services than the rest of the UK, they will have first to explain to voters in Scotland how they intend to pay for them.
Of course, some argue this Bill does not go far enough, yet it will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. No amount of devolution is going to be sufficient for those who believe in independence, but a majority of people in Scotland rejected independence and voted to retain the benefits of being part of the UK: the security of our own shared independent currency, backed by the strength and stability of the Bank of England; the job and business opportunities of a deeply integrated single market; our social union, in which risks and resources are pooled; and common defence and security in an uncertain world. Indeed, I am delighted that Scotland is to be home to the new maritime patrol aircraft and another squadron of Typhoon fast-jets. These are the UK benefits that the Smith agreement and this Bill are careful to protect. We have heard a great deal about full fiscal autonomy. I will be clear: full fiscal autonomy ends the pooling and sharing of risks and resources across the UK. It would be bad for Scotland and bad for the UK as a whole, and that is why we rejected it.
I turn to the provisions of the Bill itself. Part 1 takes forward the Smith agreement that the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government be set out in UK legislation, and that the Sewel convention be put on a statutory footing. This reflects the existing political understanding and does not alter the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The Scottish Parliament will be very largely responsible for how it runs itself, how it is elected and the people who can vote to elect it. Part 2 covers taxation. Maintaining the integrity of our single market and minimising business burdens means that not all taxes are candidates for devolution. Central to the debate is the devolution of income tax on earnings, building on the Scotland Act 2012 tax devolution, which comes into effect in April, and providing the Scottish Parliament with £11 billion of revenues. Income tax is paid by voters and is highly visible; whoever levies it is accountable to those paying it in the most direct way. While the definition of income remains reserved, the Scottish Parliament will have full control over rates and bands of income tax. It will be able to set a 0% rate, if it can afford to do so.
However, the Smith commission agreed that national insurance contributions should be reserved, so Scottish taxpayers will continue to help fund UK-wide services. Alongside income tax devolution sits VAT assignment. Differential VAT rates inside a member state are against EU law. This Bill assigns half of all VAT receipts raised in Scotland: £4.5 billion of revenue. Assigning a share of VAT was first suggested by the Calman commission. The more the Scottish economy grows, the greater the share of VAT revenue Holyrood will keep. That is an incentive to achieve growth. With the devolution of location-specific air passenger duty and the aggregates levy, the Scottish Parliament will have a mix of taxes and vitally important decisions to make.
Part 3 of the Bill means that the Scottish Government will be responsible for welfare provision in Scotland, worth approximately £2.7 billion last year, and able to take decisions for a number of types of social security benefit, discretionary payments, and employment support. Universal credit and its legacy benefits, such as pensions, remain reserved, although Scottish Ministers will be able to vary certain limited aspects. Devolving labour market benefits would undermine their role as automatic stabilisers and potentially put undue pressure on Scotland’s finances in the event of a localised economic shock. What the Bill does devolve are benefits strongly linked to powers already exercised by Scotland, such as social care and health. The Scottish Parliament will have responsibility for benefits to meet extra costs paid to carers, disabled people, those who are ill, and those who require help with winter fuel, funeral, and maternity payments. When people most require help, the Scottish Government will be able to tailor that help to particular Scottish circumstances.
The Smith agreement was also of the view that the Scottish Government should be able to top up reserved benefits: the Bill allows this to happen. On Report, the Commons approved a new government clause enabling the Scottish Parliament to create new benefits in devolved areas of responsibility. We must be clear about these new welfare powers. If the Scottish Government wish to make supplementary payments to people in receipt of a state pension or universal credit, for example, or create new benefits in devolved areas, they should be able to do so. However, crucially, they must be able to pay for it from their own revenues.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sorry to interrupt again, but can my noble friend explain what the second no-detriment principle contained in the Smith commission report means—the idea that both sides, north and south of the border, should compensate each other for changes in policy—and how that relates to the welfare and other provisions in the Bill?
Lord Dunlop
I shall come on to speak about the fiscal framework. The Government of Scotland and the UK Government are negotiating the fiscal framework and exactly how we put those principles, including the no-detriment principles, into practice. I will come back to that.
The Bill also enables the devolution of many other responsibilities, from the management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets in Scotland to the management and operation of reserved tribunals. The Commons also agreed the devolution of abortion policy, which the Smith agreement concluded was an anomalous reservation. There are also significant measures relating to transport and energy.
I want to say something about the fiscal framework, to which my noble friend has alluded, the importance of which is rightly recognised by many of your Lordships. I am particularly grateful for the work done on this by the Economic Affairs Committee. The Government agree with the committee that the relationship between the fiscal framework and the legislative powers in the Bill is critical. It underpins the transfer of tax and welfare powers to Holyrood. The issues raised by the committee’s report are exactly those being addressed in the detailed negotiations between the UK and Scottish Governments. Both Governments have agreed not to provide a running commentary—negotiating in public is not conducive to reaching an agreement.
We are committed to reaching an agreement as soon as we can after tomorrow’s spending review and the draft Scottish budget on 16 December. We cannot guarantee when the negotiations will end—that is not in our gift—and to try unilaterally to set a specific date risks weakening our negotiating position. I hope the House will understand both Governments need time and space to reach an agreement that is right for Scotland and the UK as a whole and is built to last.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
I am sure the House will recognise that, but can the Minister help us? If, during the discussions on the fiscal framework, the Scottish Government’s representatives conclude, as they may well do, that they are better off with a block grant based on the current arrangement of the Barnett formula than raising money through the tax powers on a low tax base, and if they do not accept the proposal from the UK Government on the fiscal framework and the Scottish Parliament fails to give legislative consent to this Bill, what is the Government’s plan B?
Lord Dunlop
I seem to have heard “plan B” somewhere before. I say to the noble Lord that we are planning for success here. We working for success and the UK and Scottish Governments are saying the same thing. We are working constructively together to reach an agreement as soon as we can and good progress is being made.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
I would just like to probe a little on the Government’s view that it is unhelpful to have a timeline for this and to envisage potentially indefinite discussions. I heard what the Minister said about unilateral declarations of times being unhelpful, which surprised me because the vow, of which he has spoken very much, unilaterally declared three timetables: St Andrew’s Night, Burns Night and so on. I wonder why the Government have changed their mind. Would it not be helpful at least to have some indication of the timescale in which they would hope to reach agreement? I declare an interest as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, where things tended to drift on for years rather than months.
Lord Dunlop
I thank the noble Lord. In broad terms, the Scottish Government and the UK Government are working in sync on this. On Friday, the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, said,
“I think fundamentally we need to make progress on the Scotland Bill so that the Scottish Parliament can take its final decision on whether the bill is to be adopted before we get to the Scottish Parliament elections next May”.
Our firm intention is for the fiscal framework to be available to both Parliaments before the Bill completes its passage.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way; he has been very generous. One of my concerns following what he has just said is that we are going to be legislating in this Chamber on a wing and a prayer. I have taken Finance Bills through the other place. Changes to taxation have to be looked at meticulously because they have an impact on other parts of the taxation system. I can appreciate the difficulty that the Minister is in because of the commitments made by the leaders of the three parties, but I am extremely worried that we will end up taking decisions that we cannot back out of and that will have a negative effective not just on Scotland but on the whole of the United Kingdom. Can he give me any reassurance on this?
Lord Dunlop
As I said, we are working very hard to get this fiscal framework agreed as quickly as we can. This House considered the tax provisions of the previous Scotland Bill on their merits but, when it did so, aspects such as the block grant adjustment had not been agreed, so there is a precedent here. However, as I said, these two processes need to come together, and that is what we are working hard to achieve.
This House will be involved in the normal way if legislation is needed to implement aspects of the framework. To help the House fulfil its scrutiny role, the order of consideration for Committee will ensure that Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill—its tax and welfare clauses—are scrutinised at the end of Committee, giving more time for the negotiations to progress. As I have already said, it is the firm intention of the UK Government that the fiscal framework should be available to both the Scottish Parliament and both Houses of the UK Parliament before the passage of the Scotland Bill is completed. I shall be happy to say more about the fiscal framework in my closing speech and I particularly look forward to listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, has to say.
The Government believe that the new powers contained in the Smith agreement provide the basis for a stable devolution settlement for Scotland. Both Governments will need to work together to ensure that the powers are used effectively. The powers in the Bill are substantial and offer real opportunities to develop Scottish solutions to Scottish issues. This is not devolution in isolation but part of a broader process that recognises the need to reflect changes in other parts of the UK and that one size does not fit all.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
I get the impression that the Minister is getting towards the end of his speech. If I heard him correctly, he said that he would give an explanation of the second no-detriment principle, and I very much hope that he is going to do that.
Lord Dunlop
I need to make progress, as a lot of noble Lords want to speak. I have a closing speech and will say more about the fiscal framework in response to points made during the debate.
At this stage, let me conclude by saying that I am confident that the settlement agreed by the Smith commission, as set out in the Bill, will show itself in time to be durable. I beg to move.
Lord Hollick
As an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, at end to insert “but that this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government not to schedule Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill in Committee until the updated fiscal framework proposed in Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement (Cm 8990) has been published”.
Lord Hollick (Lab)
My Lords, the Economic Affairs Committee, which I chair, has over the past four months conducted an inquiry into the devolution of public finances to Scotland. We heard evidence in London and Edinburgh from academics, economists, politicians and business leaders, and we met the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee. Based upon the evidence that we heard, we unanimously concluded that the financial measures in the Bill could be understood and scrutinised only once the fiscal framework was available. The amendment in my name seeks to ensure that the framework is available to Parliament in time to allow a full and informed consideration of the Bill. As the Minister mentioned, the Governments in Westminster and Holyrood declined to appear before us, citing the need to maintain confidentiality until agreement had been reached. Therefore, the terms of the fiscal framework remain shrouded in mystery.
The Scotland Bill is based on the recommendations of the Smith commission, the aspiration of which was,
“to bring about a durable but responsive democratic constitutional settlement, which maintains Scotland’s place in the UK and enhances mutual cooperation and partnership working”.
There are three aspects to the Smith commission recommendations on financial matters: the tax powers, the welfare powers and the fiscal framework. The latter is the mechanism to make the first two work. The Bill contains the tax provisions and the welfare provisions. It does not contain, nor is it accompanied by, the fiscal framework. This lacuna prompted the former Chancellor, the right honourable Alistair Darling, to tell us that the process was a “rotten” one, and that,
“nobody has a clue what is going on”.
So what is the fiscal framework, apart from elusive? On 14 October 2015, the Secretary of State for Scotland told the Scottish Affairs Committee:
“The fiscal framework is a vital element of the package that will make Holyrood one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world”.
In Scotland, the Deputy First Minister has said the framework is,
“an integral part of the devolution of further responsibilities”.
The Smith commission stated that the framework would contain,
“the funding of the Scottish budget, planning, management and scrutiny of public revenues and spending, the manner in which the block grant is adjusted to accommodate further devolution, the operation of borrowing powers and cash reserve, fiscal rules, and independent fiscal institutions”.
The fiscal rules will provide the operating system for Scotland’s devolved financial powers under the Bill. For example, Scotland will need to be able to borrow more to manage the potentially increased income volatility arising from its reliance on devolved tax income, which, unlike the block grant, may fluctuate. Without the fiscal framework we do not know how much it can borrow, the limits to that borrowing or what would happen if the borrowings cannot be repaid. Scotland’s block grant will need to be adjusted annually to take into account the devolved taxes. How this is done may operate to Scotland’s detriment over time. The mechanism to make the annual adjustment will be a crucial part of the fiscal framework.
On 14 October, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, told the Scottish Affairs Committee he was confident that agreement on the fiscal framework would be reached this autumn. More recent reports suggest that the target date for publication is now mid-January, which would of course be in time for consideration in Committee. Our report identified seven crucial problems with the Bill, the first of which is the absence of the fiscal framework. The majority of the other problems also arise from its absence. Let me describe four of the problems.
How will devolution affect Scotland’s funding? Scotland is funded through the block grant as adjusted each year by the Barnett formula. The formula has been used since 1978 and produces disparity in spending per head between regions of the UK. The latest Treasury figures, published last week, show that taking the UK’s identifiable spending as 100%, England is 97%, or 3% below the average; Scotland is 116%; Wales is 111%; and Northern Ireland is 125%. It is generally assumed that the disparities reflect the differing needs of the four countries. That may well be the case but, at present, this assumption is not based on any logical underlying assessment. Six years ago, the Select Committee on the Barnett Formula recommended that the assessment of funding should be based on need and introduced over a 10-year period. We endorse its conclusion and urge the Government to consider this option. It will produce a fairer, more transparent and, crucially, more sustainable outcome for the whole of the UK.
One of the most important and complex issues is how to determine the amount by which the block grant paid to Scotland would be adjusted each year to take account of devolved powers. In the first year, the block grant is set by subtracting the revenues foregone by the UK Government from the total block grant. This fulfils the first no-detriment principle enunciated by the Smith commission. In following years, it must be indexed to reflect the tax forgone by the UK Government. The choice of a method of indexation may seem technical, but it is of vital importance to Scotland and the rest of the UK. If it is not transparent and judged to be fair, it will become a source of annual grievance—and the figures involved are substantial.
As we have heard, Scotland will be taking responsibility for £11 billion of income tax revenue, which is 30% of Scotland’s total block grant of £37 billion. We looked at three indexation options: a fixed percentage, indexed deduction to changes in the rest of UK revenues, and indexed deduction to changes in the rest of UK revenues per head. In each case, even if Scotland matched UK economic performance and grew its tax base by the same rate as the UK, the amount deducted from the block grant would be bigger than the revenues collected from tax. Within three or four years, the Scottish budget could be hundreds of millions of pounds lower as a result. Over 20 years, we calculate that it would reduce in real terms by between 34% and 27%. This is unlikely to be a recipe for harmony between nations.
Deciding who bears the risk is another thorny subject. Devolution gives the devolved entity the powers to take responsibility for its overall economic performance. If successful, Scotland expects to benefit from that success. But what if it is less successful or its economy suffers from a UK-wide shock, such as the banking crisis? To what extent should it be protected in such adverse circumstances? Well, that will depend on the fiscal framework.
Another principle governing the financial relationship between Scotland and the UK is the Smith commission’s second no-detriment principle, which states that there should be no detriment to the UK or the Scottish Government as a result of policy decisions made after devolution. But how will this work in practice? Professor Kay asked what would happen if you reduced health expenditure in England and made people pay for certain procedures, with the result that ill people would be more inclined to go to Scotland and healthy people more inclined to go to England. Does anybody really imagine that compensation will be paid between the two jurisdictions to reflect that? Furthermore, if the Scottish Government lowered air passenger duty, would they have to compensate Newcastle Airport for any loss of revenue caused by passengers moving their custom to Scottish airports? How would the compensation be decided? Would there be an annual negotiation between the Scottish Government and HM Treasury? If one side is dissatisfied, who would decide? That is yet another opportunity for an annual row. Our witnesses concluded that the second no-detriment principle was simply unworkable and should be abandoned.
The Scotland Act 2012 granted Scotland increased borrowing powers and the power to borrow on the market. Witnesses agreed that the current powers were insufficient to cover the additional devolution in the Bill. Any changes to Scotland’s borrowing will be part of the fiscal framework and require legislation. Linked to expanded borrowing is the question of what will happen if Scotland is unable to meet its debt obligations. Is a “no bailout” rule really feasible? We have seen what happened to that rule in the eurozone, while during the financial crisis the UK Government bailed out the largest Scottish bank. The evidence that we heard was clear: a “no bailout” rule would simply not be believed by the markets. It is therefore essential that there are clear and consistent rules in the fiscal framework specifying the amounts that can be borrowed.
Much hangs on the terms and principles of the fiscal framework. It deserves very close scrutiny. Yesterday, the Constitution Committee said:
“In the absence of any information about the fiscal framework, it will be impossible for the House to assess whether or not the Bill will cause detriment to all or part of the United Kingdom”.
Holyrood has made it clear that it will not give legislative consent to the Bill until it is satisfied by the fiscal frame- work and until MSPs have the opportunity to consider the fiscal framework in detail. However, the House of Commons completed all stages of the Bill without sight of the framework. The Government’s haste to legislate risks adding insult to injury. Not only is this major constitutional change being made on the hoof; it is being made in the dark. This is currently, in the words of Alistair Darling, a “rotten” process but does not have to be so.
In the overview accompanying his letter to Peers dated 11 November, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, stated that the Government aimed,
“to give respective Parliaments time for due consideration of both the Fiscal Framework and the Scotland Bill”.
He has today confirmed that this remains the Government’s firm intention. This is welcome, but meaningful only if the fiscal framework is available while the Bill is scrutinised in Committee. By moving Parts 2 and 3 to the end of Committee stage, the Minister no doubt hopes to ensure that the framework will be published before the final Committee day, but if it is not he must assure the House that he will defer the final Committee day until it is published. If he cannot give that assurance today, will he explain how the Government will make good on the promise given in the overview, repeated today, to allow Parliament time for due consideration of the financial framework if its publication is further delayed? This is a settlement that must endure. Undue haste will make for a bad outcome. I beg to move.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way he introduced the Bill and for the always constructive manner with which he approached initial proceedings. On that basis, I am confident that this House will be able to have a positive impact on the Bill. I look forward to working with Members from across the Chamber to ensure that this happens.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Hollick for the crucial work that he and other members of the Economic Affairs Committee have done in producing this incredibly detailed and important report on the relationship between the proposals outlined in the Bill and the revised fiscal framework. I will address the fiscal framework and outline the Opposition’s position later in my speech, but suffice it to say for now that it is incredibly disappointing for everyone that we do not have draft proposals to consider alongside the Bill. I do not want to pre-empt the debate, but I am sure that if a Joint Committee could redouble its efforts to proceed at the quickest pace possible, without compromising on consensuality and scrutiny, it will be warmly welcomed by colleagues across the House.
By any standards, it has been an extraordinary 18 months for Scotland. Today is yet another milestone in the history of Scottish devolution. The referendum was certainly unlike any political campaign that many of us have ever been a part of, invigorating political debate across party and generational divides. The Scottish people voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, not on the basis of a return to the status quo, but in a belief that they would be a member of the union with an enhanced role in how to govern their lives. Here is also the best place I can think of to record, once again, my and our appreciation for the right honourable Alistair Darling’s chairmanship of Better Together; the absolutely brilliant managerial work carried out by my friend, Frank Roy; and the invigorating intervention by the right honourable Gordon Brown.
I mentioned giving the Scottish people an enhanced role in how to govern their lives. The Bill is that change and it delivers on the promise made. It is important to acknowledge from the outset the unique challenge that this House faces, given that the party of the majority of Scotland’s current elected representatives does not have a voice in this Chamber. It is something to which we must be wise as we debate the Bill. That said, we on this side will not shy away from what needs to be done to ensure that the Bill is as effective and workable as it can be. The decision by the Government to accept so many of our amendments, and those of other opposition parties, on Report in the other place was an essential part of this process. As a result of these concessions, we are confident that the vow has been delivered and that the Bill fulfils the powers promised and agreed by all parties in the Smith commission. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, has stated that the Bill, as amended,
“honours the agreement that was reached”.
The House will be aware that before the Government introduced its amendments we on this side of the House felt that the Bill fell well short of the commitments the main political parties had given to the Scottish people. However, following these crucial concessions—it must be recognised that the Government have moved from their original position, particularly on social security—the Bill now delivers on the vow and the Smith agreement in both spirit and substance. Her Majesty’s Opposition, therefore, fully support the Bill and all it seeks to achieve. As my honourable friend Ian Murray has stated,
“the Bill really matters, because it guarantees not only economic benefits and UK social solidarity, but the scope under devolution to do more, to make different choices and to set a different course for Scotland, distinct from a UK agenda that might not always be … in accordance with the public opinion of Scotland”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/15; col. 933.]
The Scottish Parliament, as has been said, will be one of the most powerful devolved legislators in the world. This presents a huge opportunity for Scotland. Not since the Scotland Act 1998 has there been a bigger transfer of powers. It is now up to the Scottish Government to ensure that these powers are used for the benefit of the Scottish people. The permanency of the Scottish Parliament and Government is now beyond question and, as a result of another Labour amendment, the Government have removed any UK ministerial veto on the new regulation-making powers on universal credit. Along with constitutional changes, the Bill also devolves power over electoral matters to the Scottish Parliament.
I am glad to say that significant headway has also been made on gift aid, following a great deal of concern from Labour and third sector organisations that changes to income tax levels in Scotland could cause considerable confusion among charitable donors, and financial and administrative problems for charities. The Secretary of State has committed to,
“an ongoing dialogue with the charity sector before and after the enactment of the Bill to ensure that gift aid continues to operate effectively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/15; col. 100.]
We fully endorse this.
From April 2017, the Scottish Parliament will have total control over the rates and thresholds of tax on non-savings and non-dividends income. Following the acceptance of the Labour amendments, the Scottish Government will now be able to create new benefits in devolved areas and top up existing reserved benefits, including tax credits. These substantial new powers will enable Scotland to raise more than 50% of its own expenditure and to design a new social security system. It will allow the Scottish Government to restore, if they so choose, the loss in tax credits for working families, just as the Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, has committed to do.
As part of this welfare package, we were pleased that the restricted definition of carer’s allowance was removed from the Bill. This will mean that there is significant additional scope for the creation of a new, more generous and more expansive, benefit. However, it was disappointing that the Government did not table a similar amendment with regard to disability benefit. That brings me to the areas of the Bill where we still think improvements can be made.
Although the Government’s welfare concessions are warmly welcomed, there remain further measures which, if introduced with enhanced provisions, would clear up some of the Bill’s inconsistencies. One area of concern is the definition of disability benefit, as I mentioned. At present, that definition is overly restrictive and could place unnecessary limitations on the kind of replacement benefit the Scottish Government have the power to introduce. Despite the similarity between the amendment and the one pertaining to carer’s allowance, the Government failed to table the requisite amendment in this area—we are not certain why. The devolution of the Access to Work scheme is another area where there should be further debate.
Beyond the two specific measures that I have highlighted, it is paramount that a smooth transition is afforded for all the welfare provisions that are to be devolved with the passing of this Bill. Labour believes that the most effective means of ensuring this is the establishment of a Joint Committee on welfare devolution. The committee would oversee the transition and implementation of welfare powers and include Members from both Parliaments. Such a committee would be completely open, impartial and transparent. Transparency is something we regard as having been lacking in discussion so far, particularly in the negotiations surrounding the fiscal framework, an issue I expect to dominate much of our debate today and the remaining stages of the Bill. The Scottish Government have been quick to claim that the Bill will be rejected if the accompanying funding is “not fair to Scotland”. However, they have been slow to produce accounts of the meetings that have taken place so far.
The Joint Exchequer Committee between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments promised that an agreement would be reached by the autumn. However, as has been said, we now understand that the negotiations will not be completed until January at the latest. This is disappointing. It is vital that agreement on the revised framework is reached on a consensual basis and in a timely manner, as well as being made more formal and transparent. This is something that we will be looking to pursue and explore during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I congratulate my noble friend on his presentation. He has tiptoed through some very big thistles—with some aplomb, if I might say so. On the question of reaching an agreement on the fiscal framework, I think the whole House would be unanimous, whatever view we take on the amendment, that that is desirable. Should it not be reached by the time we get to the latter stages of the Bill, does he have a view on how we should address it?
I fully understand that we are caught between a rock and a hard place because we have made a promise. Some of us take the view that that was a strategic masterstroke; some of us, like me, think it was a tactical ploy that turned into a strategic disaster, and we are now facing up to it. Nevertheless, whatever view we take—I am personally of the view that we are where we are now and we have to go on with this—how do we go on with it if we do not have the fiscal framework, which, it seems, would lead not to a sustainable agreement but to years and perhaps decades of future grievances? I hope I have given my noble friend the time to respond to me.
Lord McAvoy
Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, shouts encouragement to me. The facts of life are that we are in a very complicated situation. It would be foolish for anyone—me, my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan, or even, dare I say, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—to make specific, hard-line declarations of what is to be expected, when it should happen and what we do if it does not happen.
I believe that there is good faith—I have no reason to think otherwise—in the discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government. Your Lordships’ House should remember that the onus is on the UK Government to come up with a negotiated deal but the onus is also on the Scottish Government to come up with a deal. The people of Scotland voted to stay in the United Kingdom—not unanimously but there was a lot of support for the vote—so there are strictures awaiting anyone who plays games with these very important negotiations. It is not often I say this but I believe we have to trust the Government and the Scottish Government to deliver for the Scottish people.
The Labour Party supported many of the amendments that the Government brought forward in the other place, not least because the concessions had been debated thoroughly. However, that was not true for all the amendments, particularly those concerning the devolution of abortion law. I put on record that our concern is not about the issue of abortion—as we all know, that is different from constitutional matters—but about process. We will be calling for extensive consultation with relevant groups and representatives in Scotland to see what support there is for this proposal. This is not a reflection on the Scottish Government; this is about following the advice of the Smith commission.
Beyond these issues, we will be keen to debate a number of the transport provisions, most notably those surrounding the British Transport Police. Clause 43 follows the recommendation of the Smith commission that the functions of the British Transport Police should be devolved; but not to abolish them, which is what is being proposed by the Scottish Government, who want to transfer the existing functions of the British Transport Police to Police Scotland—more centralisation. This news has been met with strong criticism from trade unions and British Transport Police itself. This is something that we will explore in Committee.
We also intend to extend the Scottish Government’s capacity to bring about equality, particularly in relation to the functions of Scottish and cross-border authorities. That means increasing the accountability of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to the Scottish Parliament. This House has an excellent record of bringing about greater levels of equality in public life.
The final point to make on specific areas of the Bill that we hope to improve is about the Crown Estate, which again will be the subject of much debate in Committee. Although we are largely supportive of the measures the Government have brought forward, we seek clarification on a number of issues, which we will do in Committee. There are issues that need to be examined.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord—I can tell he is reaching the end of his remarks. Could he have a go, on behalf of the Official Opposition, at explaining to us how the second no-detriment principle will work?
Lord McAvoy
Your Lordships’ House should be aware that I was sitting here a few minutes ago, before I started, wishing that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, would ask that question. The noble Lord was a driving force in imposing the poll tax in Scotland, which was certainly to the detriment of Scotland. He did not give any consideration to the detriment to his country then. I am really glad that the noble Lord asked that question.
Lord McAvoy
The answer is that we will not support anything that we know is detrimental to our nation—unlike the noble Lord during the poll tax debacle.
The passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House was always going to strike a different tone from its passage in the other place—the noble Lord has confirmed that—for a variety of reasons that I mentioned during the start of my speech. However, the concessions made on Report and the acceptance of amendments from Labour and other opposition parties has meant that the Bill, as drafted, delivers the vow in full. That has to be stated time and time again.
Your Lordships’ House has a genuine opportunity to focus on the detail of the Bill and to ensure that it meets the standards that the Scottish people deserve. This is what your Lordships’ House does best, and I caution those on the outside who snigger at or demonise the work that we can do in this Chamber, with insults such as “unelected cronies” and all the rest of it. As we set out to engage in a thorough, detailed and thoughtful debate, which has at its core the very best interests of the Scottish people, I am sure your Lordships’ House will live up to that. I am proud of a lot of what the House of Lords can achieve through the scrutiny and revision of legislation. I am also a proud Scot. Whatever people may say, these two facts are not contradictory.
The Bill is a real opportunity to provide a stable, durable devolution settlement and gives the Parliament the capacity to create a fairer, more prosperous Scotland. Once it has finished its passage through your Lordships’ House, we must turn our attention to ensuring that all these new powers are devolved and, crucially, to how they can be used. In the mean time, as always, there is more that can be done. We support the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome the fact that we now have this Bill before us and congratulate the Minister on introducing it.
Many times before today, and already in this debate, the history of the Bill has been well rehearsed. Reference has been made to the agreement among the three party leaders and the fact that on the morning after the very successful outcome of the referendum—which showed that the people of Scotland did, by a significant margin, wish to remain part of the United Kingdom—the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin. I am delighted to see the noble Lord with us today. As has been said, there was a very exacting timetable for the publication of the commission’s proposals, which were due before St Andrew’s Day last year, with the draft clauses due before Burns Night. I had some engagement in those days with the Scotland Office, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, and the work that was put into meeting that particular deadline is a great tribute to the staff. Since then, in the light of further discussions, there has been some refinement of the clauses, but we on these Benches believe that the commission’s recommendations and proposals—taking forward, as they did, the agreement among the three party leaders—are delivered in full in this Bill we have before us. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, has also indicated that, and we look forward to hearing more precisely what he thinks about the detailed provisions of the Bill.
We also support the Bill because it is a further step along the road to federalism, which for my own party has been the ultimate destination for many years. Indeed, the Scottish Liberal Democrats’ contribution to the Smith commission was based on Federalism: The Best Future for Scotland, the report produced by a commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. We very much look forward to hearing his maiden speech today. He brings to this House great expertise and experience, not just in politics but also outside politics, in particular on this subject. We also look forward to the maiden speech of our fellow member of the Faculty of Advocates the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
While it is important that we support this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, echoed, the House must do its job properly—a job of proper scrutiny. I think that is more incumbent on us, given that the three principal parties actually agree on the Bill. As I said at our briefing last week, I think we should be haunted by the Child Support Agency which went through Parliament with the support of all parties. Those of us who were Members of Parliament at the time know how much our constituency mailbags and surgeries expanded because, I think, something that was agreed by all parties did not perhaps get the scrutiny that it should have had. If we seek to improve on the Smith commission proposals and do so in the spirit of the commission, then we should feel that we can certainly do so.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
In fairness, since the noble and learned Lord said that we have to give this scrutiny, I should ask him the same question that I asked my noble colleague here. How can we give it scrutiny if an essential, central, crucial part of it—the fiscal framework —is not available for us to scrutinise? Does he have a view on how it might proceed? My noble friend gave us his view that we should have a degree of trust and wait to see how things develop. Does the noble and learned Lord have a view?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I do. If I start answering that partly now, I will probably end up repeating myself. I certainly will address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, asks.
I see the Bill as having a number of different parts, dealing with constitutional issues, fiscal issues, welfare issues and what might be described as miscellaneous provisions issues. On the constitutional issues, the commission recommended that,
“UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are permanent institutions”,
and that,
“The Sewel Convention will be put on a statutory footing”.
Clause 1 of the Bill does indeed state that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent institutions, and it is claimed, as the Minister said, that it should not encroach on the sovereignty of Parliament. I certainly believe that federalism would be a better guarantee of the long-term establishment and entrenchment of the Scottish Parliament, but that is not on offer—it was not before the Smith commission.
During the Scottish Constitutional Convention—there are a number of noble Lords present who were party to that convention—we had many agonising debates as to how we might best entrench the Scottish Parliament that we were intent on establishing. We came to no really good conclusion. When the Labour Party, in Opposition in 1996, recommended and proposed a referendum, my party colleagues and I were opposed to that. In retrospect, I think we were wrong. The fact that we had a referendum in 1997 with such an overwhelming result—both on the Parliament itself and on its tax powers—means that there was a political entrenchment that no amount of legal debate, legal argument or legal wording was ever going to establish. While it is undoubtedly the case that, technically and legally and in constitutional theory, Parliament can repeal what has been said here, nevertheless the fact that it is suggested that there should be a referendum before there is any abolition of the Scottish Parliament lends a political entrenchment which is very welcome indeed.
With regard to Clause 2, I note that what is in the Bill is almost literally what the commission proposed—that it should put on a statutory footing the Sewel convention—because it states:
“But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”.
Those are the words that Lord Sewel used on 21 July 1998. Of course, in practice, legislative consent Motions have been extended by Devolution Guidance Note 10 to include Bills in the United Kingdom Parliament which confer new powers or responsibilities on Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament. By definition, if we are conferring new powers, the powers cannot already be devolved. My question for the Minister is: why is the clause limited to the very narrow, literal expression used by Lord Sewel in July 1998? In practice, that wording plus Devolution Guidance Note 10 has worked. Strictly speaking, this Bill does not require a legislative consent Motion because it is conferring new powers on the Scottish Parliament. Are two categories of legislative consent Motions envisaged and, if not, why not just put the whole practice of legislative consent Motions on to the statute, rather than limit it to the words of Lord Sewel during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998?
With regard to welfare powers, we believe—and it was reflected in the outcome of the Smith commission report—that it is consistent with the principle of securing a social union that many welfare benefits are rightly reserved to the Westminster Parliament, but we support the proposals for the Scottish Parliament to have power to create benefits in the areas of its devolved responsibility: housing, carers, disabilities and discretionary payments in areas of welfare. As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said, no doubt they need to be looked at in more detail so that they deliver what was said on the packet, and we will certainly do so.
It is also important to remember that with that power goes responsibility. There is not much point if people go around promising more in terms of top-up benefits unless they are prepared to say where the money will come from to pay for them. It is an inevitable consequence of having a mixed welfare system—partly devolved, partly reserved—that the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government will have to work more closely together. That in itself cannot be a bad thing; we hope that it will generate more collaborative working than we have sometimes seen in the past.
The amendments made in the other place have to some extent taken away the concern that there was a veto, which is welcome. I always thought that the veto case was totally overstated. I think it is a question of practicality. I remember that when I was in the Minister’s position of having to answer to your Lordships’ House, I asked: “What is actually meant by this?”, when we were dealing with the draft clauses. The example given to me was: “If the Scottish Parliament decides that it wants to have a top-up benefit for left-handed redheads, frankly, the social security system does not have a database for that, so we could not agree to it until such time as we had one”. It was therefore not unreasonable that such a mechanism was included to allow the practicalities to be resolved.
There are one two other specific provisions. The commission recommended that there should be,
“a formal consultative role for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in designing renewables incentives and the strategic priorities set out in the Energy Strategy and Policy Statement”.
Clause 58 refers to “Renewable electricity incentive schemes”, but it does not refer to heating schemes. I am not sure that any explanation has been given as to why heating schemes should not be included, given the wider remit of the Smith commission proposals.
I echo some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, on equality. However, I think it is important that we ensure that the basis of equalities legislation in the United Kingdom is in no way diluted through devolution.
With regard to the Crown Estate, the commission recommended that there should be devolution of management to the Scottish Parliament—or, more practically, to Scottish Ministers—and onward devolution to the communities of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, and indeed, other local authorities. Many of us here are hugely suspicious about whether a Government in Edinburgh who seem to spend all their time centralising, as the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, said during Questions today, will actually adopt the spirit of decentralising power further. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, in his personal comments on the commission, stressed the importance of devolution going beyond Edinburgh. We may wish to examine amendments along the lines of those moved by my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael in the other place to leapfrog, as it were, and genuinely ensure the empowerment of local communities.
Turning to the fiscal powers, we now have full income tax, aggregates tax, air passenger duty—the latter, too, having been recommended by the Calman commission on which I served. Can the Minister indicate why aggregates tax is included now? We did not include it before because we were awaiting judgments from the European Court of Justice. An update on where we are on that, and why the Minister thinks it is possible now when it was not in previous legislation, would be welcome.
We owe it to your Lordships’ Select Committee on Economic Affairs to respond to the report that it has given us, which undoubtedly has aroused some controversy. I certainly understand and recognise the frustration that we do not yet have the fiscal framework. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, I believe that it is important that we should have sight of that at some stage in our proceedings, but I just utter this word of caution. We cannot do this in a political vacuum. Delaying the Bill at this stage would effectively give the SNP Government a veto on the progress made, and that would not be particularly desirable either. The Minister said that John Swinney was on record saying that he wanted this agreement. We must take that at face value, but, equally, those of us who are immersed in Scottish politics well know that, if something went wrong and we did not manage to reach agreement, they are the masters and mistresses of turning that to their account, and the finger of blame would point unequivocally at your Lordships’ House. Those who have made milking grievances a master art would be only too pleased to have a narrative of betrayal.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord says, because, on the one hand, we have the cause of rational scrutiny, and on the other the imperative of politics—of keeping a vow. My worry is actually politics: I worry that, in capturing the minutes, we will lose the hours. In other words, if the criticisms being made are correct, then we might have a political storm at present if we were to do as was suggested and in any way delay the Bill, but if the criticisms are correct, we will have decades of such grievances and political problems in future. I probably come down on the same side as the noble and learned Lord on this: the imperatives of the politics are necessary today, but it is essential that the Government recognise that this fiscal framework has to come back at some stage before we get to the end of this process. Otherwise, we are having to make the devil’s alternative choice.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, nothing I said takes away from what I said at the outset: that it is very desirable that we see the fiscal framework. The Government should take from all sides of the House that there has been a view to that effect. While I think it is nonsense to expect the Government to reveal their negotiating hand in this debate, it is not unreasonable to ask, perhaps, for more transparency to show that progress is being made, and for the Government to enunciate some principles as to what they wish to see in the fiscal framework.
For example, one hopes that the Government’s negotiating stance is to seek fairness on all sides—for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Their role is to take in the whole of the United Kingdom, not just the rest of the United Kingdom. The no-detriment principle should be at the point of devolution: that there is no detriment one way or the other when a particular tax is devolved. There should be a form of indexation—I do not underestimate the difficulties, but it should be one which in itself is neutral, with an automatic mechanism to avoid an annual row.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Does not the noble and learned Lord think that there is a great irony that the Scottish nationalists are arguing that it is essential for the Scottish Parliament to be able to consider the Bill alongside the fiscal framework, in order to ensure the best interests of Scotland, when this is a Bill that will affect every part of the United Kingdom and the House of Commons has not had an opportunity to do what the nationalists are saying is essential, and quite rightly so, in a Scottish context?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am not sure what, if anything, was said in the House of Commons about the lack of the fiscal framework when the Bill was being debated there—in fairness, I am sure that it was discussed—but what I have said is that the Government should be seeking to negotiate for the whole of the United Kingdom: there should be fairness all round with regard to this.
Crucially, we should make it very clear that Scotland should bear the full fiscal consequences of its own decisions. There has been some suggestion somewhere that there has been a bit of “cake and eat it”: that somehow or other, if things go wrong, Westminster will top it up. There are those of us who believe that the important rationale for more tax powers is accountability, but that goes out the window unless—for better or worse—the Scottish Parliament accepts responsibility and accountability for the consequences of its decisions.
In conclusion, the important thing that many of us want is to get on and use the powers. From next April, there will be the Scottish rate of income tax. We look forward, once this Bill is implemented, to more than £15 billion-worth of tax powers and £3 billion-worth of welfare.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way and apologise for having hesitated for a moment; I was just reflecting on what he had said. I strongly agree with him about the Scottish Government accepting responsibility when they have the power to make individual decisions relating to rates of income tax. He said they must be accountable because they have the responsibility, but is that not utterly inconsistent with the idea of the second no-detriment principle which seeks to safeguard them and does it not make a nonsense of the responsibility that they have?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I look forward with interest to what the Government have to say on the second no-detriment principle. If I may say so, one of the shortcomings of the Smith commission report—I am sorry, this will have to take up a bit more time—is that it just gives a heading on page 26 that says:
“No detriment as a result of UK Government or Scottish Government policy decisions post-devolution”.
It then says:
“Where either the UK or the Scottish Governments makes policy decisions that affect the tax receipts or expenditure of the other, the decision-making government will either reimburse the other if there is an additional cost, or receive a transfer from the other if there is a saving. There should be a shared understanding”.
Scotland has powers over the threshold and rates of income tax. As I understood it—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, will be able to tell us—if for example, as was indicated, the United Kingdom Government were to change the definition of an income tax payer, that could have an impact on Scottish tax rates. I see that as the other detriment that would have to be addressed. It is certainly how I understood it—but more important is how the Government understand it. Thank goodness I do not have to answer for that any longer.
This should actually be an exciting time. The two most exciting elections I fought in Scotland were in 1999 and 2003, when we had got the constitutional settlement and were debating how we would use the powers we had. That made for real political debate. We should be able to use the powers imaginatively. Parties should be able to debate how we set out an agenda for an enterprising Scotland, a more socially just Scotland, a greener Scotland and a fairer Scotland, and how we can benefit all its communities—not just in the central belt but from the islands down to the Borders. This Bill is not an end in itself. It is a means to try and improve the governance of Scotland and the accountability of that governance, give the Scottish people an opportunity to take more decisions into their own hands and build the kind of Scotland we want to see. The Bill has our support.
Lord Smith of Kelvin (CB)
My Lords, in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum, the leaders of the UK’s main parties made a series of commitments about further powers for the Scottish Parliament. I was asked to chair political talks to agree the detail of what those powers should be. These talks led to an unprecedented agreement among Scotland’s five main parties. That agreement has now been translated into the Bill before us. I will address three main issues in my brief remarks today: first, to talk about the process through which the agreement was reached; secondly, to reflect on how the agreement has been translated into the Bill; and, thirdly, to address the issues that remain outstanding.
Before I do so, I will explain my role in the process. I stand here today as a Cross-Bench Peer, and throughout my career I have sought to avoid any political affiliation. Although the agreement has come to bear my name, its conclusions have not been influenced by me. I never discussed my views on Scotland’s constitutional settlement or how the powers should be used—and I intend that to remain the case.
I begin with some reflections on the process that led to the agreement. The process was the first time that Scotland’s main parties came together and reached an agreement like this. It was an unprecedented outcome of an unprecedented time in Scottish politics, so it was no surprise that the agreement was hard fought. All parties had to make compromises. Some felt that the agreement had in some areas gone further than they would have liked and others felt it had not gone far enough, yet they all put their personal positions to one side to reach a deal. I pay tribute to the parties for doing this, especially the representatives that I had the pleasure to work with directly. I think we have one solitary member of the commission with us today—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
In relation to good faith, the noble Lord says that all the parties agreed to the agreement. I saw his press conference, when he announced the agreement, and I also saw John Swinney immediately afterwards say that he did not agree with what had been agreed. Is that good faith?
Lord Smith of Kelvin
What actually happened was that he signed up to every single word in that agreement. Immediately afterwards, as a lifelong nationalist, he said that he would always want much greater powers—and, indeed, independence. That was probably what he was going to say when he entered in—but they did not leave the table, and they signed up to every word in the agreement.
The agreement was published on 27 November and it was and is a political agreement. Then it had to be turned into law and, very importantly, in the months that followed, a commitment to implement the agreement was set out in the 2015 general election manifestos of the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National parties. At the same time, teams of civil servants were busy translating the agreement into a Bill.
That leads me to my second point: does the Bill match the agreement? I believe that the Bill that we have before us honours the agreement among the five parties. Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords will have an important role to play in making sure that the Bill makes for good law, but I am also sure that this House will reflect very carefully before making any substantial changes to the Bill that would result in it differing significantly from the agreement.
I turn to my last substantive point: the issues that remain outstanding. Not all the agreement requires legislation. One crucially important part remains outstanding, as we have been hearing time and again: a new fiscal framework for Scotland. This is fundamentally important to making Scotland’s new powers work. It is the final piece of the interlocking jigsaw. As we have heard, it is not yet agreed and is being discussed between Governments. I am told by Ministers on both sides—I am taking a healthy interest in this—that conversations have been constructive and carried out in good spirit. I expect that to continue and to deliver an outcome in line with the principles set out in the agreement. It is vital that they do. I know that noble Lords and the Scottish Parliament will have views on how the Bill and fiscal framework should proceed. In my view, it is an issue to be discussed and agreed between both Governments, so I shall defer any questions on the parliamentary handling of this issue, at any rate, to the Government Front Bench.
That leads me to the final issue that I want to raise under the heading of unfinished business: the working relationship between a Scottish and UK Government.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but before he moves on to that point, could he explain how he sees the second no-detriment principle operating, as the author of that idea?
Lord Smith of Kelvin
The principle is very simple. We established the principle that there should be two areas where there should not be detriment. In the second area, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware from his time working on budgets for Scotland, there is a very complex calculation even now, without these new powers, under the Barnett formula, whereby averages and so on are looked at. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, expertly explained that it will be even more complicated in future. We arrived at a principle whereby, when taxes are raised, the money is kept and is available and, when taxes are reduced, the money comes off the block grant. There should be no change between the two countries aside from that. It is very complicated indeed, but it is rather like the Schleswig-Holstein question. I am not saying that no one remembers the answer to it, but it is that complicated. May I leave it at that? The noble Lord could perhaps ask future speakers as well.
The Bill is important to Scotland and to the rest of the UK. I think noble Lords will agree that it is one of the most important we are going to see in this Parliament.
To return to the point I was making before the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, intervened, in my view, relations between the UK and the Scottish Government are not good enough right now. We need to see greater respect from each Government to the other in public and in private. The agreement reached with the Scottish parties, and subsequently tested with the electorate across the UK, demonstrated a clear intent. I believe the Bill honours that intent and I hope noble Lords can work to support its progress, improving it where necessary, to deliver that intent into law.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this important debate. For me, it is reaching the destination of a journey which started more than 16 years ago. I will explain further why my perspective on this Bill is slightly different from that of any other Member of this Chamber. I view it through the prism of having been a Member of the Scottish Parliament since 1999, a stalwart supporter of the union who fought with Better Together to reject independence, and a member of the Smith commission on which it was a great privilege to serve. It was a commission set up by the Prime Minister after the referendum to respond to a universal demand to broaden the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
This Bill is two things. It is a pragmatic response to a Scottish Parliament with power to spend money but with very little responsibility for raising it. It is also, very importantly, a political response to a manifest and tangible sentiment in Scotland which emerged during the referendum campaign from people who, although uneasy about independence, did not support the status quo and wanted a parliament with greater political responsibility.
To put this into some kind of context, when I was elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, I was not among those who thought it was the first stage of a journey to hell in a handcart. Nor did I share the views of those at the other end of the spectrum who, even then, flirted with full fiscal autonomy and greater spending flexibility. After several years of devolution, I recognised that the structure was flawed. The fault lines were prised open in 2007 when an SNP administration took office. Admittedly, it was constrained by being a minority administration, but that was a temporary abeyance. That period of political indigestion paved the way for the Calman commission to which some noble Lords have already referred. Its recommendations induced the Scotland Act 2012—a cautious, not extensive increase of powers.
In 2011, the election of the SNP to the Scottish Parliament with an overall majority introduced a completely new political dynamic in Scotland. Among other things, the SNP embarked on an almost daily, relentless gripe about the inadequacy of resources given to Scotland. It also possessed a clear mandate to hold a referendum on independence. However, something else was happening. There was a growing awareness among Scottish voters that things needed to change. For example, many were aware that, while welfare was interlinked with the devolved competencies of health, housing, local government, skills and training, welfare itself was reserved to Westminster. It was such inconsistencies that the SNP relentlessly exploited. There was a vacuum of any meaningful political responsibility in the Scottish Parliament, whereby the SNP could constantly criticise lack of resources and yet have responsibility for raising only a fraction of them.
Some have argued that the Bill before us was a panic reaction to a highly charged referendum debate. In fact, the deficiencies, frailties and inconsistencies of the devolution settlement were laid bare by the referendum debate. This Bill is a pragmatic response to that reality. At the heart of this is also an issue of political trust with the people of Scotland. Prior to the referendum, voters were demanding clarity from the individual political parties in Scotland—clarity about a commitment to extend the powers of the Scottish Parliament if Scotland voted no. That led to the collective undertaking by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg—to which some noble Lords have already referred—to honour that commitment within a timescale. The first part of that commitment was the Smith commission, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin.
The Smith agreement is the genesis of this Bill, which has been passed by the House of Commons, was not opposed by the SNP and has received the approbation of Lord Smith himself. It is far-reaching and exciting legislation that delivers the Smith agreement. As a pragmatic and political response, it does what it says on the tin. In anticipation of these real political responsibilities, parties in Scotland are already drafting manifestos for the elections next May.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend served admirably on the Smith commission. Can she explain to us how the second no-detriment principle will work?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lion, my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, may, with the passage of time, have lost a fang or two, but I have learnt that whenever the matter of devolution and the Scottish Parliament comes before him, his demeanour is more predatory than benign. I could not improve on the answer given to him by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin.
Regarding the Economic Affairs Committee’s report advocating a delay in enacting the Bill, I have very real political concern because I have to look at all this through a political eye. Were such a delay to be a possibility, Nicola Sturgeon would be cracking open the champagne and thinking all her Christmases had come at once, because such a delay would write the script for her. I can hear the words tripping off her lips: “deception”, “betrayal”, “bad faith”, “broken trust” and “Westminster is a bunch of scheming ferrets”.
This Bill must be enacted. Were it not, the political breach of trust and the betrayal of commitments to Scottish voters would be unacceptable. However, the Economic Affairs Committee is absolutely right to identify that the fiscal framework consequential on the Bill is of huge importance. The Smith commission recognised that, as it did the need to retain the Barnett formula. As has been indicated, constructive discussions are ongoing between the two Governments about how the formula should be adjusted to reflect the changing circumstances consequential upon the Bill. That is not a reason for delaying the Bill; it is a reason for the intergovernmental discussions arriving at a stable and flexible solution that can withstand financial shocks.
The committee is right to identify these challenges, but the fiscal framework is a modus operandi for the two Governments to agree. As a member of the Smith commission, I was privileged to play a part in the genesis of the Bill; as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I know Scotland needs this Bill; and as a proud Scot, I look to Westminster to deliver this Bill.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. She and I were a double act during the referendum and spread fear throughout the land. I shall take up one of her final points. She talked about faith and trust in the process and the vow, or the promise, or whatever you call it. I agree that Ms Sturgeon will be cracking open the champagne bottle, but whether we pass this Bill or not, she will be cracking open the champagne bottle because the one thing the SNP is very good at is whingeing. It has raised it to an Olympic sport.
I believe that a promise is a promise and should be kept, but there is something that overrides that, and it is the well-being of the Scottish people—and, indeed, the people of all of the United Kingdom. It should not be above our capabilities to sort this and get a move on with the fiscal framework. Contained within this, there are a number of traps that could cause huge damage to the Scottish economy and therefore to the Scottish people, but, as was pointed out in my noble friend Lord Hollick’s excellent speech and in the excellent document from the Economic Affairs Committee, there are real threats to the performance of the United Kingdom economy. I shall pluck one from the air: borrowing rights and borrowing costs. If they are not resolved, we could find ourselves in a Greek situation: we could be into the Varoufakis school of economics. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who I know is a friend of Mr Varoufakis.
The faux outrage that we have had from the SNP in relation to the powers in the Bill was absolutely predictable, and it will wish to keep it going because what it is most interested in is process. The longer we keep on at process, the less we look at competence. I will come on to some of the competence issues later. The Scottish Government do not want this legislation on the statute book before the next election because if it is, they will have to say what they are going to do with it. They have powers from previous Acts that they have not used. So there are issues here which we need to address in Committee, but there are some which the Scottish people need to be made aware of because the constant undertone of whingeing and complaint drowns out those who are raising real concerns about the competence of the Scottish Government.
Lord Maxton
I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness has said. Will she make it quite clear that the SNP is interested only in an independent Scotland, not in devolution in any form whatever?
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I agree with my noble friend and will come back to that point later. The debate on the fiscal framework is interesting, particularly the intervention by Professor Anton Muscatelli, who is no fan of those of us on the union side. The work by him and by the Economic Affairs Committee, and some of the comments from the Scottish Government, reveal that the Barnett formula, and the process we have had up until now, delivers the best possible deal for Scotland. It is interesting that there is now back-tracking, with people saying, “We are going to get less”, or, “We could get less” as a consequence of losing chunks of the Barnett formula. This makes the case that we were all making during the referendum campaign. The SNP was trying to get the Scots to walk away from that very formula.
The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the real significance of the fiscal framework is the no-detriment deal. I will get this in before the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, does. That deal is,
“unworkable and will simply create ongoing disputes”.
I would take this one stage further: you have to define what detriment is. You cannot conclude that something is detrimental until you have set out the parameters of what detriment means. The overall deal gives the Scottish Government the power to design a significant part of the welfare system and control income tax. We have to reflect here, in the short term, on issues of competency, because there are impacts for all of the UK and how we are perceived internationally—and the omens are not good.
This is one of the reasons why we have had such histrionics from the other place about this legislation. Audit Scotland has already revealed that the Scottish Government are running a deficit: an underspend of some £350 million. This is at a time when our health service and education system are underperforming and crying out for money. Speaking as somebody who has been a Finance Minister, it is an even greater sin to have an underspend than an overspend, because it means that you have not done your planning properly and it raises issues of competence or cynicism. What is more, we have never been given a proper explanation of why previous powers have not been used. We also have lots of examples of how money has been misspent. In the past week, there were two cases of IT systems that are not even going to be used because they were so badly specified.
The performance of individual departments within the Scottish Government also gives me real cause for concern. Many Scots are really concerned about what is happening with Police Scotland. We have had some terrible tragedies recently. I was quite astonished to discover that the Justice Minister had not met the Chief Constable for four months. That is a shocking statistic and I am really concerned about it. We have 2,000 fewer police staff in Scotland.
The other area I have a concern about is one that we in Scotland have always been extremely proud of: our health system. The headlines may be about people dying on trolleys, but behind that there has been a 0.7% fall in real-terms spending on NHS services and new hospitals in Scotland over the past six years. Bed blocking has increased from 200,000 in 2011 to more than 612,000 last year because of a lack of community support, 71% of vacancies in accident and emergency staff are unfilled for six months and 2,000 NHS nursing jobs were cut in Scotland when Nicola Sturgeon was Health Minister.
I am a proud bus driver’s daughter from Coatbridge. It is a coincidence that I am standing behind my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan as both of us went to the same school and both of us got our opportunities because we were given a good Scottish education that allowed us to go to university. The gap between Scotland’s most and least deprived children stands at 12% in reading, 21% in writing and 24% in arithmetic. There are 4,000 fewer teachers in Scotland and the figure that really sickens me is that fewer people from poor homes in Scotland are now able to go to university—down at less than 10% when it is more than 12% in the rest of the United Kingdom. That shames Scotland and it must be put right.
I suspect that many Members of your Lordships’ House would not be aware of the fact that the budget for bursaries and grants in Scotland has been cut by £40 million and that the total value of student debt in Scotland stands at almost £2.7 billion. It is the SNP Government’s biggest financial asset. That is absolutely shameful. Against that record of incompetence we have to look at agreeing the legislation in this House without knowing the detail of the fiscal framework.
Many of us in this House are a bit long in the tooth. We should be able to come up with ways to examine the fiscal framework in time to meet the promise before the legislation is enacted. If we cannot see the detail of the fiscal framework—if we cannot see the workings, as they used to say in primary school—if the Government would be prepared to release to us the minutes of the discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments, we would at least have a flavour of where it was going.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, referred to the jollity that there would be if this Bill was not passed. In the other place there was a lot of criticism from the SNP Benches about how bad this legislation was. Yet did they put down amendments? Did they vote on those amendments? One very important amendment that my noble friend Lord McAvoy referred to was about abortion being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. They put down an amendment on that because they support it. They did not put in tellers. What could be more cynical than that? You have the amendment, you have the debate but you run away at the final hurdle because you are frightened of the nature of the debate that it will create.
I apologise that I have taken longer than the advisory time. As noble Lords may gather, I feel very passionately about this. The noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, referred to the fact that he listened to the results on the night and heard the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I listened to the results outside Stirling—Stirling in South Australia. The next day, when I went into shops, as is my wont, people would come round the counter when they heard a Scottish accent and shake hands and say, “We are glad that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and will continue to be part of it”. If we muck this up, that is not going to be the case.
I will shut up now and look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem—the second most beautiful place in Scotland after Coatdyke—and I very much look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am not entirely clear how to respond to that but I think that the good people of Pittenweem will make their own judgment.
I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous of me to suggest that we should be loath to draw any parallels between the Schleswig-Holstein question and any of the contents of the Bill. It will be remembered that one of those who claimed to understand the question went mad, and it may be thought an unfortunate omen.
Contrary to expectation, this is not the first time that I have spoken in your Lordships’ House. The last occasion was more than 30 years ago but I have good cause to remember it well. Outside, there was a most Indian of Indian summers; inside, being after 1 October, the central heating was going full bore, and I was dressed in full court dress and wearing the necessary full-bottomed wig when appearing before the judicial committee in the Chamber. Notwithstanding that ordeal, worse was to be suffered. I spent a whole day being eviscerated by Lord Bridge of Harwich, whom some of your Lordships will remember for his robust interventions on the judicial committee. It is only very recently, and reluctantly, that I have come to the view that perhaps he did not care for my argument.
For maiden speakers, the advice is clear: be grateful, be short and be uncontroversial. I believe that I will be able to meet the first two of these but I have some reservations about my ability to adhere to the third. I am indeed grateful to all those who have successfully piloted me through the necessary steps to enable me to become a Member of your Lordships’ House but I have little doubt that I shall be seeking their indulgence for some considerable time to come. However, if I may offer a tentative conclusion, it is now patently clear to me that the House of Lords is run by the attendants. I am left with the feeling of a junior who has left to join the seniors, and I mean no adverse implication by that characterisation. As for being short, I believe that I can meet this requirement, as in my previous life I never showed any enthusiasm for long distances or indeed endurance events.
However, it is the third of those pieces of advice of which I am less confident. This is a debate nominally about Scotland but, as has been made clear in some of the contributions, it is also about the future of the United Kingdom. In the febrile and sometimes intimidating environment of Scottish politics, it is almost always necessary to state one’s qualifications for joining in the debate, and that is why I will state mine.
I was born in Scotland, my parents were Scottish, I went to school and university in Scotland, I am married to a Scot, I qualified in and practised Scots law, I represented a Scottish constituency for 28 years and I am the chancellor of Scotland’s oldest university. I believe that I have the right to participate in any debate about the future of Scotland and the United Kingdom wherever it may be held. But my pride in Scotland is not exclusive: I am equally proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. At Murrayfield I cheer for Scotland, although not always to good effect; at the Oval I cheer for England; and, wherever the Ryder Cup is played, I cheer for Europe. These are not competing but complementary affiliations.
So why should I be proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom? Here are a few reasons. This country has had no civil war since the last convulsions of Jacobitism in 1745. It successfully resisted the fascism and the communism which blighted so many countries in Europe. It invented the welfare state and created the National Health Service. Human rights are at the very heart of our governance and we have a judiciary, both north and south of the border, of enviable independence. Our freedom of speech, expression and assembly are admired by liberals everywhere. Beyond that, we are permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations, the G8, NATO, the European Community and the Commonwealth. We have much to be proud of in our unique contribution to international affairs.
And yet our union is under threat. I have no doubt that the people of Scotland agreed that we are better together but, following the events of the last few weeks, I am equally convinced that we are safer together. I simply do not believe that an independent Scotland would be capable of providing the level of security required if we are to live in safety. A failure to do so would have dangerous implications not only for Scotland but for the rest of these islands. If we are to preserve our union, I believe that we need to legislate for a new Act of Union; legislating for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and setting out clearly the responsibilities and rights of all four nations. If you advance that proposition, you have to answer the question of what form such a reinvigorated union should take.
Until very recently the F-word was not mentioned in polite society, and certainly not before the BBC’s 9 pm watershed. But now, it is in common parlance. My personal view, agreeing with that of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is that the case for federalism has never been more popular or stronger than it is now. This is not the occasion for a detailed debate on a new Act of Union or indeed on the principle of federalism itself. However, I hope that we shall return to these matters early here. If I may, out of nostalgia as much as anything else, I will say as I said on the previous occasion when I spoke in your Lordships’ Chamber: my Lords, I rest my case.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, what a pleasure to follow that wonderful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. As ever, it was perceptive and thought-provoking. I note that in the short interlude since his promotion from the other place he has lost none of his eloquence nor the stamp of wisdom. He was most modest about his many achievements. The House is very much aware of his political ones, but he shone too in a stellar athletics career, holding the 100 metres record for Great Britain for seven years. He was an Olympian and also captain of the Great Britain athletics team for a couple of years.
One achievement that he is not aware of, and which I think is an equally great achievement, is capturing the vote of my grandmother. She was a constituent of his who lived in Elie, a neighbouring village of Pittenweem, and a life-long Conservative. She cited his great charm and his common sense, and we have seen that evidenced today. I think we can look forward very much to his further contributions in debates.
I declare my own interests as set out in the register of the House, especially as a Member of your Lordships’ House who lives and farms in Perthshire.
At this important stage of an important Bill, it is a great pity that we will not hear at all from the Scottish National Party. As a matter of SNP party-political policy, its members have refused the offer of appointments to your Lordships’ House. The result is that at least a part of Scotland has no voice in proceedings today and no method of advancing some, or indeed any, of the many amendments that the SNP put down in the other place, which were substantially not debated. I am sure that many in the House today regret this self-inflicted state of affairs. It would be very interesting, for instance, to have the SNP’s view on the fiscal framework and the second no-detriment principle.
I have at home a handwritten set of the minutes of the 1706 meetings between the commissioners for Scotland and England that gave rise to the union, and I spent part of last weekend rereading it and reflecting on it. It is a fascinating document dealing with the proceedings over several months, between April and July that year. The early part of the proceedings were very much about political structure and the later part about financial matters—Scotland being effectively bankrupt at the time. The symmetry of history means that one could cast this Bill as substantially being the final financial follow-on to the political settlement of devolution.
Put simply, the Smith commission agreement hands more power to Holyrood, substantially over financial matters. However, the Parliament or Government who are to receive the new power must be ready to receive it. There has recently been considerable public comment about perceived failings in Scotland today—very ably summed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, in her powerful speech, which I look forward to reading again tomorrow. The criticism is directed at government performance and at the way in which Holyrood scrutinises new legislation. On this latter point, I have some direct personal experience—which I will not go into today for timing reasons—and I cannot see how MSPs, with their heavy constituency programmes, can lend the time required for the sort of careful scrutiny that your Lordships undertake; I hope that this scrutiny point is being thought about in Holyrood with a view to change. Accordingly, we must be very careful not to overimplement the Smith commission report.
Turning to the specifics of the Bill, given that there are some 40 speakers I will comment only on Clause 34, which concerns the Crown Estate. Currently, the Crown Estate is managed by the independent Crown Estate commissioners, pursuant to the Crown Estate Act 1961. The make-up of the commission is, by custom and practice, politically neutral, as it looks after so much of great national importance. The commissioners have done a very good job over the years and, in the last financial year, returned £285 million to the Treasury. The Scottish assets within the Crown Estate render a much larger percentage of the Crown Estate income than the 10% or so that Scotland might get through the operation of the Barnett formula. Accordingly, this became the subject of a Smith commission discussion about money.
In closing, I put three questions to the Minister. First, the Smith commission agreement calls for the assets to be transferred to the “Scottish Parliament”. In the Bill, this has become “Scottish Ministers”. The proposed move is therefore from apolitical commissioners to highly political Ministers. Can the Minister explain this change? Secondly, the Smith commission envisages further onward devolution to various named local authorities, as was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. The Bill is silent on this. Can the Minister explain this? Finally, can the Minister confirm that it is the intention in this Bill to ensure that in future the Scottish assets are held on an exactly analogous basis and cannot be used for political purposes? The Crown Estate commissioners have an excellent record of service to the United Kingdom, and I very much hope that the new Scottish replacements will maintain these high standards and that this Bill will act as a strong constitutional document for them.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and to echo his tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, who gave us a most interesting and elegant speech and whose presence in this House will enhance it considerably, not least because of his great distinction in the field of defence—knowledge of which will be quite welcome in the weeks and months ahead.
We must pass the Bill. That is not in doubt. Promises were made, agreement was reached between the parties, and approve it in due course we certainly must. But it must also be pointed out that, for the leaders of all the major parties in Westminster to agree in advance to pass into law whatever the Smith commission came up with—to do it in full and at once—is indeed, mercifully, a unique constitutional experience. No constitution committee could fail to protest at such an abandonment of due constitutional process, or to identify, as our report did, its dangers and possible shortcomings. Nor can the House fail in its duty as a revising Chamber to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly.
I make no criticism at all of the Smith commission or its chairman. Indeed, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, on reaching an orderly conclusion. He presided with great skill. He showed perceptive and sensitive guidance that contributed much to the process. His comments in the foreword of the agreement are indeed valuable, in particular his reference to further devolution in Scotland and to improvement in intergovernmental relations—a subject on which the Constitution Committee has already reported, to which we await the Government’s response. I also pay tribute to the productive contribution to the Smith commission of my noble friend Lady Goldie, whom I am sure helped to contain some of the wilder aims of others.
Nor do I blame for the problems we now face my noble friend the Minister, who has the misfortune to be the last in line in the legislative process, with a difficult job to do and a lot of troubles piled up. But the bigger picture is not just about this Bill. We now have the third Scotland Bill in just 17 years—a box set of enduring settlements, each one seeking to regain lost ground. We all saw how the nationalists signed up to the agreement and then resiled from it the very next day, trying to use it as a stepping-stone. To them, it was simply ground gained.
The Bill has one really important aim: it will at last force the Scottish Government to face up to the responsibility for raising much of the revenue in Scotland and thus be held accountable to their electorate. That alone is a good reason for the Bill passing in due course, but that does not excuse it from scrutiny. I trust that your Lordships will indulge me for a little longer than the advisory speaking time so that I can draw attention to some of the most significant concerns our Constitution Committee has expressed. In the interests of time, I will leave to others the vital issue surrounding the fiscal framework. I will not endeavour to explain the double jeopardy point—what was it called?
Lord Lang of Monkton
The double detriment point. To do so would be to the detriment of my speech.
A similar problem attaches to the shared powers over welfare, whereby the House cannot assess how the vital intergovernmental relations will operate without the revised memorandum of understanding and joint ministerial committee structure now still being negotiated. Our report has therefore suggested that, as with the Economic Affairs Committee’s concern about the lack of a fiscal framework, a delay in the progress of the Bill may be necessary to allow for proper scrutiny of the welfare provisions.
I agree with my noble friend the Minister about the desirability of calming things down, but I hope that in his winding-up speech he can reassure me and the Constitution Committee on a number of points. Clause 1, on enshrining the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, seems simple, straightforward and declaratory, but it could have profound constitutional significance. The Government now appear to seek to compromise the United Kingdom Parliament’s competence with regard to the devolved institutions, first by stating their permanence in statute and secondly by creating conditions involving a referendum that have to be met before the UK Parliament could move to abolish them.
It is of course completely implausible to suggest that such a course would ever be contemplated, but the concept of parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the United Kingdom’s constitution and it has long been understood that no Government can bind their successors. In seeking to limit Parliament’s powers in this manner, the Government are introducing confusion and uncertainty about the nature of parliamentary sovereignty where once there was none.
Clause 2 compounds this concern. By giving the Sewel convention a statutory basis, the Bill opens the door to judicial intervention on the right of Parliament to legislate. It risks creating a route through which the courts might be drawn—inappropriately but perhaps inescapably—into an area hitherto within the jurisdiction of Parliament alone: its competence to make law. That is serious enough, but it seems to me that the original meaning and purpose of that convention may have already mutated, with no debate or authority from Parliament, into something much more far-reaching, which could breach the whole principle of devolution: that power devolved is power retained. Even the word “normally” in the clause raises clouds of uncertainty and the prospect of judicial involvement.
Our committee believes that it is now vital that the Government clarify the purpose and reach of the Sewel convention as stated in Clause 2. Can my noble friend confirm that the guidance note GGN2, issued in 2005, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, referred, did not change the purpose of the convention in any material way? In addition, the combined impact of Clauses 1 and 2 could be dangerous and no thought seems to have been given to this. These two clauses might not be just declaratory and, taken together, could have far-reaching consequences. Will my noble friend also confirm that in the final analysis, no devolved Parliament or Assembly is entitled to veto legislation passed by the sovereign United Kingdom Parliament?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord is raising an important point. Does he agree that, as we now have a system under Standing Orders whereby legislation passed by both Houses can be vetoed by a subset of the House of Commons—namely, English MPs—the Government have already sold the pass on the sovereignty of Parliament?
Lord Lang of Monkton
The noble and learned Lord identifies precisely the kind of confusion and obfuscation which endangers the sovereign nature of this United Kingdom Parliament. It is a very important area and I hope we are able to pursue it further.
The Bill also has significant implications for England. Considerably fewer issues will now be reserved, and the West Lothian question will consequently intensify. By increasing the scope of matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the number of issues to which the new English votes for English laws procedures will apply will increase. This will add to the complexity of establishing whether new legislation deals solely with devolved matters. I do not believe enough consideration has been given to that, and further confusion will flow from matters that are shared between the two Parliaments.
Our report commented on several other matters of concern, but the recurring theme was that no serious consideration seems to have been given to the implications of the Bill for the union as a whole. We need to articulate a coherent vision for the future shape and structure of the union if the ongoing process of reactive, ad hoc devolution, demand-led and indiscriminately granted, is to be stabilised. No major constitutional measure that does not take account of its implications for the United Kingdom as a whole can possibly claim the right to provide for an enduring settlement. It is that wider challenge of stabilising the union, and rationalising devolution within it, that your Lordships’ Constitution Committee is engaged with in our current inquiry.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, for his very statesman-like maiden speech—I was going to refer to it as “Ming’s maiden speech” but that might not be appropriate in this setting. It was a tremendous tour de force. I am also very much looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who I know well from the other place.
As a number of Members will know, not least my noble friend Lord McAvoy on the Front Bench, I have been an enthusiast for devolution for a very long time. I argued for it in the 1970s and was very disappointed at the result of the 1979 referendum, when, although we had a majority, we did not get over 40% of the vote. We were all disappointed but we pulled up our skirts—or our kilts—and fought again and we managed to get it in 1997 in the general election and in 1999 in the referendum. We were very pleased about that. The constitutional convention in Scotland—with, let us be honest, the SNP and the Tories on the sidelines—came up with a great scheme. At least we thought it was a great scheme. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and I served on that constitutional convention and many compromises were made, as he knows.
I must confess—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will say, “I told you so”—that, on reflection, the Scottish Parliament and particularly the electoral system have not functioned as we had hoped and expected. We were told that that electoral system would not result in an overall majority. Yet in 2011 we saw the SNP, with only 45% of the vote, get an overall majority: 69 out of 129 seats. Let us be honest about it. This is something we all have to face up to, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Smith, but everyone here. It may not be known by some of the people south of the border that the result has been an SNP hegemony—control by one party—in Scotland.
The SNP does not just have a majority in the Parliament, but there is an SNP Presiding Officer—it did not see fit to let another party have that job. There are SNP majorities on every committee—which never criticise, unlike our committees in both Houses of this Parliament. Civil society, through a succession of carrots and sticks, is becoming increasingly subservient to SNP dominance, as are the media. We saw that one of the committees of the Law Society seemed to have been taken over. There are the voluntary organisations: we saw a £150,000 grant, without any submission, being given to T in the Park because there was a little bit of elbowing by someone very close to the SNP.
Of course, there are no checks on the power. There is no “House of Lairds”—or, even better, a Senate—that might hold the SNP to account. It has total control. Let us not pretend. My noble friend Lady Liddell—I call her the Secretary of State Emeritus—and my noble friend Lord Maxton said this. Everything the SNP does is subservient to its goal of independence. We must never forget that. That is what it is doing. If it agrees, it is a tentative agreement. It is done just because it is expedient to do so at the time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lang, said, we have had three Scotland Bills. The tax-varying powers in the 1998 Bill were never used. The second Bill in 2012 led to the Calman commission and all those powers—tax-raising powers, borrowing powers, the revenue Scotland created—but very little recognition or credit was given to this Parliament for giving that kind of devolution. The SNP keeps asking for more—this Oliver Twist syndrome, which is part of the slippery slope towards independence. That is how the SNP sees it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, the 2011 election provided the SNP with the 2014 referendum. With no disrespect to the Prime Minister, he was conned by Alex Salmond into deciding that it should be yes/no—and the Electoral Commission went along with that. It is not doing that for the European referendum, which is not going to be yes/no; it is going to be “withdraw or stay in”. Of course the SNP made its proposal the yes proposal because it is good to be positive. It chose the date. It used all the resources of the Scottish Civil Service to argue its case.
Then, just as we were getting near, there was that flawed YouGov poll—and it was flawed. It was out of kilter with every other poll. That led, as my noble friend Lord Maxton said, to the unnecessary vow. It led to panic. It led to the Smith commission. With no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that was rushed and we have ended up with an unworkable proposal. That created the momentum for the 2015 victory; it led to the SNP being elected with—well, it was 56 seats, then it was 55, now it is 54; they are toppling one by one through various means.
What have we got in Scotland? We have an Education Minister who cannot string two sentences together, a Justice Minister who does not seem to see the need to meet with the chief constable regularly and a Health Minister who is totally oblivious to the failings of the Scottish health system. They are not exercising their powers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, made a very eloquent plea for the SNP to improve services in Scotland, to improve education, to have innovation and new ideas in the health service, and to improve the justice system to get fewer people in prison—all those kinds of things which it promised it was going to do but has not been doing. It has let the services take over while the First Minister and her Cabinet Ministers go around the country for photo opportunities, campaigning for independence. That is exactly what they are doing—let no one be in doubt about that.
In an intervention that I made on the Minister, I asked about the now increasingly likely event that the SNP will see that it is going to get these proposals but will be worse off in financial terms than it is currently under the block grant and will decline legislative approval for the Bill. It might well do that. We are in a very difficult position because the Government have no plan B. The Conservatives are doing this and everything else on an ad hoc basis. As for the truth of what went on between the First Minister and French ambassador, I still believe that she did say to her that she would prefer Cameron as Prime Minister to Miliband, because it serves the SNP’s purpose to have a right-wing Tory Government making cuts, doing the kind of things that the people of Scotland do not want.
What is the alternative? The Minister could well ask me what my plan B is, but I have said it again and again. It was great to hear the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, come in and say it and to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, say it again. We have the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Pittenweem, and we have heard this now from the Constitution Committee of this House on a number of occasions. What we need is a UK constitutional commission to work towards a federal or a quasi-federal system to deal with the English democratic deficit, to include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to provide an opportunity to consider proper Lords reform at the same time. There is a growing consensus for that, and the only people who do not see it are the Government. If the Government continue to fail to understand this and what is happening in Scotland, I warn them now that independence is inevitable sooner rather than later. It is about time that the Conservative Government woke up and did something positive to protect the union.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, way back in the mists of time—I am talking about 1960 or 1961— I was president of the students’ representative council at the University of Edinburgh. A young man was elected to the council that year on behalf of the first-year students who turned out to be a complete pest. He was always raising points of order, asking awkward questions of the establishment and interrupting other people. I always wondered what would happen to him—his name was George Foulkes. He has continued that wonderful tradition in the House of Commons, in the Scottish Parliament and now here in the House of Lords. It is a great pleasure to follow him and agree so much with his last peroration. He echoed what my old friend and colleague, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, was saying in urging that we should have a proper debate and a proper constitutional commission at some future time to look at the whole future settlement of the United Kingdom rather than these endless piecemeal points. I entirely applaud what my noble friend Lord Campbell said on that matter. I also welcome the report of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, my former constituent, particularly the foreword that he wrote, to which reference has already been made, about further decentralisation within Scotland.
I welcome this Scotland Bill. I said right at the start of the Scottish Parliament, when I was elected its first Presiding Officer, that no self-respecting Parliament could exist for ever on a financial grant from another Parliament. So the proposed transfer of responsibility for raising the bulk of the money that it spends in future, which is the basis of the Bill, is entirely correct. However, I have two concerns. First, as so often happens, the Bill was not fully scrutinised in the Commons, where it was subject to tight timetabling. That was especially so on Report, when the Government tabled many important amendments, some of which were simply never debated at all. If they plan to have this on the statute book before next May’s Scottish elections—which is wise—they will need to aim for Easter. In that case, to do it justice, they will need more days in this House than they have been contemplating so far.
Secondly, and more substantially, I am deeply disturbed at what I see as the growth of a one-party state in Scotland, about which we need to warn the electorate. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I have the advantage, shared by others in this House who have served in the Scottish Parliament, of knowing the personalities in the SNP quite well. I have from my objective chair developed a genuinely high regard for the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and for her two close allies, John Swinney, her deputy and Finance Minister, and Angus Robertson, its leader in the Commons. These people should not be underrated. They also have some talented younger members not yet known here, such as Humza Yousaf, who any party would be glad to have in their ranks. It simply will not do to sneer at or belittle these people as somehow inferior to those we are used to here at Westminster.
However, the one-party state is a real threat. I do not mean by that ludicrous comparisons with North Korea nor Mussolini’s Italy—although some of the cybernats come close to that—but the growing assumption that if you are not an SNP supporter you are somehow unpatriotic or anti-Scotland. I will give two examples. Recently an Orkney friend of mine complained to a Highland MSP that areas such as the Western Isles and Argyll, which happened to have SNP MSPs, enjoyed lower public ferry fares than the Lib Dem-voting islands of Orkney and Shetland, only to get the response, “Well, you know what to do next time”.
The other example is the tendency of the SNP Government to increasing centralisation, as has been mentioned several times already. Scotland is a small country where it is relatively easy to centralise. We have already seen the disaster of abolishing local police forces and combining them into one. Local authorities and health boards are increasingly nervous that their powers are being subsumed by central government, while education and health service targets are being missed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, rightly told the House a few minutes ago. The SNP Government are sort of Teflon coated. Every time these figures are produced, they simply say, “It’s all the fault of Westminster for not providing the money”. That is one of the reasons why the Bill is so important.
The latest threat in terms of centralisation is to the governance of the Tweed river, which, ever since the Tweed Act 1950, has been an outstanding example of good management, involving scientists, the local authorities, angling clubs, fishing owners and landowners. The SNP appears baffled by that Act, which applies Scots law to the English side of the Tweed and English law to the Scottish bank of the Esk in the west. They want to scrap those decades of success and impose a centralised governance on all Scottish rivers.
Last autumn, we in Scotland had a lucky escape in the referendum. At the time, the SNP was able to predict a healthy economy based on North Sea oil prices at over $100 per barrel. They have been bouncing along since at just over $40 per barrel, which would have hit every household grievously had we gone independent without the protection of the United Kingdom. Now we are faced with this new threat: if the nationalist tsunami hits the Scottish Parliament next May, we shall have uncontrollable government of the most dangerous kind. The Bill should be passed with that very serious health warning in mind.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation of the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. He has been a colleague in the Faculty of Advocates for many years and his coming to this House can only be a benefit to us. I simply say the same about the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. As another member of the Faculty of Advocates, it is a great privilege to welcome her, as it will be to listen to her maiden speech in due course.
I have been privileged to hold a number of important offices in Scotland and also in the United Kingdom with functions in Scotland. Today, I am glad to participate in discussion of this important Bill relating to my native land. The most relevant of those offices today is my appointment as sheriff principal of Renfrew and Argyll, when I was the returning officer for Argyll and declared the late Iain MacCormick, the SNP candidate, as Member of Parliament for Argyll in the elections of 1974.
Turning to the Bill, on 12 November 2015 Bruce Crawford MSP, chairman of the relevant committee of the Scottish Parliament, wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland, from which I quote:
“Dear Secretary of State … Re. Views on the Scotland Bill—post-Report Stage … I am writing to you on behalf of the Committee following our consideration of the latest stage (Report Stage) of amending the Scotland Bill in the House of Commons held on 9 November.
We welcome your constructive engagement with the Committee during the process since then and the obvious improvements that have been made at this most recent stage. Many of the changes that you made are in line with our suggestions and we are pleased that you have agreed with the Committee’s view and further improved the Bill. We welcome your comments to this effect made in the House of Commons during Report Stage.
As you are aware from previous correspondence and our Interim Report published back in May 2015, the Committee remains in agreement that we want to see the final Scotland Bill fully respect both the ‘spirit and substance’ of the all-party Smith Commission agreement. At both introduction of the Bill and at Committee Stage, we stated that, in some of the areas, the legislative proposals met the challenge of fully translating the political agreement reached in the Smith Commission. In other areas, improvements in drafting and further clarification were required. In some critical areas, the legislative clauses fell short.
In particular, the Committee is pleased to see the changes that have been made to some of the welfare provisions, notably the ability to introduce new benefits in devolved areas and to top-up benefits in reserved areas”.
He goes on to list a number of detailed points about the clauses which it would be appropriate to consider in Committee.
I have quoted this to show my profound appreciation for the co-operation that, in this case, has marked the process so far associated with the Bill—which I hope will continue—and to refer to the agreement that the final Bill should fully respect both the spirit and substance of the all-party Smith commission agreement. In my view, a role of this House as a revising Chamber is to examine the Bill to see if other amendments are required in order that that agreement be fully implemented. The fact that I am not elected in no way disqualifies me from fulfilling this function, and I am comforted by the knowledge that any amendments we judge to be necessary need to be approved by an elected Chamber before they become part of the Bill that passes into law. I say this in the light of the comments about this House made by a member of the Scottish Government some weeks ago on the BBC’s “Question Time”.
I believe that the process so far precludes us from giving effect to the conclusions of our Select Committee on Economic Affairs concerning the Barnett formula, but of course, they may well be effected by the fiscal framework which is still in the process of negotiation. The principles set out for that in the Smith agreement are reasonably clear, in language that is not very recondite. To put them into practice just now is quite difficult. I conclude by suggesting that my noble friend the Minister make copies of the letter to which I have just referred available to Members of this House, as I think the later paragraphs would be very useful in Committee.
I am very conscious of the problems in Scotland that have been mentioned. As a resident of Scotland most of the time, it is apparent to me that there are matters that need to be dealt with. They are primarily matters for the Scottish Parliament, but there are serious problems relating to the constitution of the United Kingdom as a whole, and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton and his very capable Constitution Committee are looking into them.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He is one of these unique individuals who never says anything that is not worth listening to, and his speech will repay careful study. I remind the House of my interest in the Wise Group, which will become obvious in a moment because I want to restrict my remarks in the next five minutes to the welfare clauses, Clauses 20 to 29. I also want to express the hope that someone in our Whips’ Office reminded my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem that the last time he was here, he got his clerk to send a fee note for £3,000 for his performance. I hope someone will put him right about the going rate at today’s prices, although it was probably worth £3,000 in terms of the value of his contribution.
This has been a more optimistic debate than I expected. I take my cue from my leader, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, by saying that I think this is an opportunity. If I can claim to be a kind of specialist in social policy, I have a distinct feeling that investing in social protection is something more easily accepted by the electorate north of the border than in other parts of the United Kingdom—I put it no higher than that. I have come across a number of exceptional examples in Scotland of investing in preventive spending and giving early attention to preventing recidivism, for example, some of which I have seen as a non-executive director of the Wise Group. There are such opportunities in smaller scale communities across different parts of Scotland that I think would benefit from having more control over what they do.
I agree with everyone who says that it is essential to retain for the benefit of the population of Scotland the residual machinery that deploys universal credit and the private pensions industry in the United Kingdom, but there are areas that I am increasingly coming to believe would be better devolved. I include in that category—it is not in the Bill but we need to think about it for the future; maybe 2020, not 2017—devolving Jobcentre Plus and putting it under the control of the Scottish Government. According to a report published by Cambridge Econometrics, £660 million is spent on employability in Scotland. It comes from all sorts of different places of different sizes, such as the European Social Fund and the Government’s Work Programme. I am absolutely certain that a Scottish Government who were sensible about planning and controlling that expenditure could get better results. The Bill opens the door to that.
I understand the powerful speech of the nobble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I was his best man, and that has been held against me—particularly by his wife. He stands up to the cybernats; I do not have the bottle to handle them the way he does. I have a Twitter account which I hide in; he has a Twitter account through which he attacks everybody in sight. My noble friend Lord Steel made the point that there is a danger of a single-party state. We must remember that the nationalists will not be the Government for ever. I come back to the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. We are setting plans in train, and this is an opportunity to think about how we do things better in future. I am more confident than some others; I might be more naive, but I am more confident.
I have two more things to mention before I turn to the eight clauses I will concentrate on. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, and it was his last point that worried me most. If he is of the considered view that the relationship between our two Governments still is not good enough, the Government need to respond. The Minister has a hard job responding to what will be a detailed and complicated debate. If he does nothing else, I ask him to address that point, if he can. Secondly, it is entirely correct that we put Part 3 at the end of Committee. I am against any principle of detriment, whether it is the first or the second; I just do not think that detriment is a good thing. We should take our time and give the clauses due consideration. If Part 3 comes last, nobody will be more pleased than me, because I will be tabling amendments the like of which I have a minute now to describe.
One thing we need to think carefully about is that Clause 27 introduces the notion of concurrent powers. I do not know of any other part of the social security legal framework that contains that concept. We need to be very careful about how the machinery is put in place to ensure that that works.
We should also consider—I will be tabling amendments to this effect—introducing the Social Security Advisory Committee in some form north of the border, because I do not believe that social security provision will lessen in future in the devolution settlement. I support those who say that the constitutional framework now needs to be addressed. There is a whole series of such questions, and I give notice to the Minister that I will be tabling amendments to try to clarify the Bill, make it more effective and less ambiguous and ensure that there are no unintended consequences.
I end on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, in what was a very measured speech: the important thing is to get a smooth transition in 2017, because the welfare changes affect hundreds of thousands of families. If the machinery does not work, it is not the politicians or the policymakers who will suffer; it is the families who depend on those benefits coming in week by week, month by month. Let us hasten slowly; let us get this important Bill on the statute book in good time to plan for the social security work necessary to ensure that smooth transition in 2017.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I am sure we can all agree that we are against detriment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who chairs the Economic Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, for the brilliant way in which he introduced the substance of our report. It is a high-powered committee, very diverse in its nature, but we had no disagreements or arguments: the report is absolutely unanimous. It was described by one journalist in Scotland as delivering the political equivalent of a Glasgow kiss to the Government; he clearly does not understand that we are much more civilised in this House, but I am sure that my noble friend can feel the pain from some of the report’s recommendations. It is a double whammy, because the other great committee of this House, the Constitution Committee, has independently come out with exactly the same conclusion: that we should not proceed with the Bill without the fiscal framework.
This has been a very interesting debate. It is a great pleasure to have heard the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I have a lot of sympathy with his view that what we need is a new Act of Union which is well thought through and not based on a ragbag of conclusions. There was no greater joy in heaven than to hear the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, confess that perhaps devolution on a piecemeal basis had not quite worked out as he expected. I must say that I thought it would be a disaster, but I never expected that it would reduce the Labour Party to only one MP in Scotland. We were told that no party would have a majority. We were told that they had devised a scheme which would save the union and kill nationalism stone dead. I will not venture down an analysis of how well that has worked out.
I was disappointed to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, managed to steal the mother of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, from the Conservative Party, but I take comfort in the fact that his mother-in-law and his father-in-law, the very distinguished General Urquhart, were both stalwarts of my local branch when I was the Member of Parliament for Stirling.
I know that it is difficult to keep up with all the reports produced in this House, or sometimes even just to read the summary, but if your Lordships cannot bring yourselves to read the report of the Economic Affairs Committee, all you need to do is look at the title: A Fracturing Union? The Implications of Financial Devolution to Scotland. If you can get to the last paragraph of the first section, entitled “Executive summary”, it says all you need to know. You can forget what the members of the committee had to say. Under the heading “Huge risks to the union?”, it says:
“A number of witnesses expressed concern that overlooking the problems identified above is storing up trouble for the future, even threatening the existence of the Union. Professor David Heald, Professor of Accountancy, University of Aberdeen Business School, described the political climate around these issues as ‘toxic … the future of the United Kingdom remains at risk’”.
Professor John Kay, whom we all know as having three brains—it does not say that in the report, by the way— and who is the visiting professor of economics at the London School of Economics, thought that Scotland would drift towards independence,
“because it is the only way to resolve these problems”.
So there is a special responsibility on this House, on this Parliament, to seek to resolve those problems.
Here we have the Scotland Bill, all gleaming and new. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, knows of the complexities of the Barnett formula, and all the rest. In a fantastic speech, she said that she was the daughter of a bus driver and talked about the failure of education in Scotland—not least, actually, caused by the Labour Party’s refusal to embrace our education reforms in Scotland. I have to balance my remarks because I would not want to damage the noble Baroness by praising her too highly. During her excellent speech, I was reflecting that my father sold second-hand cars.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Yes, and I am proud of that, just as the noble Baroness is proud of her origins. My mother used to polish the cars so that they were gleaming in the sunlight, in the hope that someone would come in to buy them.
So we have the Bill: all beautifully presented and put together. I do not think that my father would have got very far if he had tried to sell a car by saying, “I am terribly sorry, you can’t look at the engine. I can’t tell you about the gearbox. In fact, there might not be an engine—actually, it is confidential. But once you’ve bought the car, we can tell you whether the engine works, whether the gearbox works and whether the software works”. That is what we are being asked to do on the Bill: “We can’t possibly tell you about the fiscal framework”, which is the guts of the Bill, “because it is confidential. We are discussing it with the SNP. By the way, we are getting on very well; we have a long record of getting on very well with them”.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Dunlop had given me an assurance, in a private meeting back in the early part of the summer, that the Bill would not be introduced to this House without the fiscal framework. However, because I know the ways of the Civil Service, and of the Treasury and Governments, I thought that I would table a Written Question. I tabled it on 9 July—remember July? It was a long time ago. I asked Her Majesty’s Government,
“when they plan to publish the new fiscal framework agreed with the Scottish Government”.
The Answer I got was:
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister met on 8 June where they agreed that they would aim to conclude negotiations on the fiscal framework that will underpin the financial provisions of the Scotland Bill by the autumn, in tandem to the timetable for the Bill”.
I thought that Answer was not quite consistent with what I thought my noble friend Lord Dunlop had said, so I put down another Question. I asked,
“whether they plan to take any stages of the Scotland Bill in the House of Lords before the fiscal framework has been agreed and published”.
The Answer I got on 22 July was:
“The Government intends to progress the negotiations on the fiscal framework in parallel with the Scotland Bill. At their meeting on 7 July, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister re-affirmed their aim to conclude negotiations on the fiscal framework by the autumn”.
Now is the winter of our discontent not made glorious summer by my noble friend. When I was in school, “in parallel” meant “alongside each other”. How can it be “in parallel” with the House of Commons when the Bill has left that House? In his speech, my noble friend said that the Bill was unopposed at Third Reading. Third Reading in the other place took all of 10 minutes, with the fiscal framework not known.
Of course, I understand the political difficulties that afflict my noble friend and the Government. We have heard a great deal about this amazing vow. I do not normally recommend the Daily Record for reading, but I recommend looking at its report on the anniversary of the vow on 17 September, where the editor says that it was all his idea. It was invented by him: he rang up Gordon Brown and said, “Gordon, can you get the other party leaders to do this and we will put it on the front page?”. Indeed, the description of the vow was not that of the party leaders but invented by a tabloid journalist. Noble Lords can imagine my astonishment on hearing this when we got evidence to our committee from a distinguished academic who told me that the vow was the nearest thing we had in Scotland to Magna Carta. So there we have it: the Daily Record is better than Magna Carta.
If we look at this vow—this vow which is of such importance—it contains the sentence:
“And because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue, we can state categorically that the final say on how much is spent on the NHS will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament”.
That is what it said when it was signed by David Cameron, who is still a leader, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg—both of whom have since disappeared, leaving us to sort out the problem. It is illiterate and completely wrong. How can you say that spending on the health service would be “protected” because of the Barnett formula and the tax-raising powers? The whole point about the Barnett formula is that the amount of money that goes to Scotland for health is determined by what is decided in England. That is why the report of the Economic Affairs Committee is right to emphasise that we need to move away from Barnett towards a needs-based system if Scotland is to get the share of grant that represents its needs. The whole thing—this clash between the Barnett formula and the impact of the tax-raising powers—is based on something put together by a tabloid journalist.
We then had the argument that we cannot delay the Bill and need to get on with it. This has been the problem all along. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, the Smith commission and the work that he did on it. However, I cannot think of any time in our history—perhaps we could go back to Henry VIII—when three privy counsellors could sit down and agree something that then had the force of law. Normally, Governments—the Executive—have to go to Parliament: it is a matter for Parliament, not Governments, to decide the fiscal framework. The only part of our parliamentary process in these islands now that seems to understand that—irony of irony—is the Scottish nationalists, who are saying, “We want to see the fiscal framework and the Bill. We are only prepared to consider them together and if we don’t think it works in a fair way, we will reject it”. It is a situation that has been denied to the House of Commons.
I would like to pick up the noble Lord, Lord Smith, on one point. In his foreward to the Smith commission report—there is a picture of him on the front—he says, under “A more autonomous Parliament”:
“The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent in UK legislation and given powers over how it is elected and run … The Parliament will also have the power to extend the vote to 16 and 17 year olds—”
So it goes on, using “will”. I am sorry, but it should perhaps say “should” or “we recommend that it might”. Whether or not it does is a matter for this Parliament—not for the Smith commission or the Government, but for Parliament. It is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to look at it.
I will make one final comment, because I realise that I am over my time. By the way, that is another disgrace: for us to be limited to six minutes on a major constitutional change is quite ridiculous.
Lord McAvoy
Before he sits down, could the noble Lord perhaps give us his understanding of no detriment?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
God bless the man: I have an excuse to speak for another six minutes. First, all the evidence that we had from our witnesses—it is all on the internet; people can read it and it is available in the Printed Paper Office—is that no detriment is completely unworkable. The report says that if on either side of the border, a change of policy results in a change in the money available to either side, the other side should compensate it. I will give an example. When I was Secretary of State, they privatised water in England. In Scotland, my noble friend Lord Lang decided that we were in enough trouble; he did not privatise water. As a result, of course, Scotland no longer got the Barnett consequences of the public expenditure on water in England, because it was charged, and we had to find from within the Scottish block the money to pay for water.
My understanding of the no-detriment principle, if it means what it says on paper, is that in similar circumstances under the new arrangements, if in England they decided to privatise or stop doing something and that resulted in a lesser grant to Scotland through the part related to the Barnett formula, then England would have to send Scotland a cheque. That seems to be rather unworkable. The idea that because England, say, had privatised water, it should send a cheque to the Scots to enable them to continue with a state-run, inefficient system, does not seem to be practical politics. I might have got this completely wrong, but every time I ask the Minister or the author or its exponents what it means, they say, “This is a matter for negotiation and we cannot possibly comment, because it has all been done on a secret basis”. It is just not acceptable to proceed beyond Committee until we have answers to this and many other questions that I will seek to elucidate for my noble friend by tabling lots of amendments.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it is a very real pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. He will remember that when he was Secretary of State for Scotland and I was the head of the judiciary, we did not always see eye to eye. In fact, I can assure your Lordships that he was just as vigorous and energetic in his presentation of policies with which I did not agree, and just as controversial, as he is now. These days are past now, if I can echo the words of a well-known song, and it is a pleasure to listen to such a spirited speech, with much of which I can agree.
I would also like to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a former dean of the Faculty of Advocates—as am I—in what he said about the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It is a quite unusual situation for two members of the Faculty of Advocates to make their maiden speech in this House on the same day. I am not sure that this has ever happened before. It is a very real pleasure for us, who recall the faculty and owe it so much.
Turning to the Bill, I confess to having mixed feelings about it. Of course, the Bill must pass and it was—and is—an essential part of the process that the recommendations of the Smith commission are put in place. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, put it in his foreword and also said today, that process is one of turning the recommendations into law. There must be some relief at the progress made in what has been achieved so far to bring the Bill forward to this House within a year of publication. The report is not yet one year old—I think its birthday is on Friday of this week.
Leaving that to one side, there are some serious grounds for concern. I mention a point developed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in his very perceptive speech, that if you look at the detail in the Bill and contemplate what it really means for the people in the Scottish Parliament, you begin to wonder at the ability of that Parliament to handle what we propose to deliver. After all, the Parliament was designed in the Bill that became the Scotland Act 1998. I am one of a number of noble Lords here who is a veteran of the debates then. I remember that the Minister who introduced it, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said:
“Through this Bill we seek to establish an enduring, fair and stable settlement”.—[Official Report, 17/6/98; col. 1567.]
He said he was,
“completing the unfinished business of which John Smith spoke”,
and that this was to be a,
“lasting political legacy”.—[Official Report, 17/6/98; col. 1574.]
What was designed, in a similar pattern to Wales and Northern Ireland, was a unicameral system with a series of committees to control and scrutinise the Executive and the legislation being put through. Given the package that was in the Scotland Bill of 1998, that seemed a reasonable and stable situation. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was careful to explain to us, the political situation has changed entirely from what was envisaged in 1998. That leads me to the concern about the ability of the Parliament to really deal with the situation we have now, with a majority Government and all the consequences already mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, drew attention to this problem in his foreword, where he said that the addition of these new responsibilities,
“means that the Parliament’s oversight of Government will need to be strengthened”.
He called for,
“an inclusive review which will produce recommendations to run alongside the timetable for the transfer of powers”.
As far as I can detect, that has not happened. I do not know what is going on to try and achieve the noble Lord’s wise words. I hope that the Minister in his reply will be able to give us some insight into the progress, if any, being made to achieve that kind of strengthening of the system of government which will need to cope with these new responsibilities.
On the detail of the Bill, in the short time I have left, there are particularly Clauses 1 and 2, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, referred and which have been the subject of some discussion in the Constitution Committee’s report. Clause 1 reminds me of Article XIX of the Act of Union 1707, which declares:
“That the Court of Session or Colledge of Justice do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom”.
In other words, that was a declaration that the College of Justice was not to be capable of being removed by an Act of this Parliament. As a student at Edinburgh University many years ago, I was taught that the provision in those terms was fundamental law and in that respect the UK Parliament did not have absolute sovereignty. That is what I was taught. Clause 1 seems to drive in the same direction: a declaration that is perhaps intended to have political effect but, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, the purpose of the Bill is to turn these things into law. If it is turned into law then one day somebody will bring the issue before the judges. The judges do not invent the argument; it is brought before them. If it were brought before them—I sincerely hope it never would be—that would give rise to exactly the point that the noble Lord talked about.
In Clause 2, I am concerned about the use of the word “normally”. I do not understand what that would mean. If this is making law, again the judges will have to decide what is normal. I do not see how they could possibly do that without evidence. It has to be explained. Also, as has been pointed out, the Sewel convention must be explained. If it is to be turned into law, it must be capable of being argued about in court and made the subject of a determination by the judges which makes sense and contributes to our well-being. These points are very well taken by the committee, with great respect, and I hope we can develop some further thinking about this in Committee.
Lord Brennan (Lab)
My Lords, having had the privilege of serving on a board with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for several years, I recognise his formidable debating skills but today’s was a star performance. As the second English contributor to this debate, I will take an English point of view about much of the content with which we should be concerned. Of the matters raised by the Bill that affect the role and future of the union, of particular importance are governmental structures, finance and potential adverse consequences.
First, on governmental structures, we have three devolved legislatures in this nation and the peoples of those three each have their own Assembly and devolved powers, and therefore their say through that Assembly in the exercise of those powers. The English have none of that. In addition to the fact that we have those three legislatures, each of them has significant differences one from another—sometimes all three the same and sometimes all three different. Now we have yet further changes to compound that: this Bill, giving the greatest powers to a devolved nation, in many ways, in the world; then the draft Wales Bill; and then the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill that we will debate this evening. There was also the corporation tax Bill for that devolved legislature a few months ago. It is more and more change, none of it properly interrelated and with no cohesive structure. That is a recipe for a constitutional mess, to put it bluntly. Of course these decisions are political, but they must be responsibly political.
This unhappy state of affairs now frequently attracts the use of the word “asymmetry”. That is a refined, classical Greek word in origin which is extremely useful to describe a state of affairs that it would be embarrassing to describe in plain English. When I looked at the dictionary today, “asymmetry” not only means simple things such as imbalance of power or irregularity but also has one definition that I thought significant: a state of affairs in which there is an uneven distribution to the detriment of one. Which one might that be in the system I just described—Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or England? Who knows? With this Bill, asymmetry takes on a yet more profound significance. This present state of affairs illustrates a fact we must recognise: there is no constitutional cohesion in the present union and this Bill further compounds that.
I have one final example on this question. There are 13 major powers in this Bill shared between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, including on energy and the like. How are they to be resolved? Under what system of co-operation are the two Governments required to engage? We do not know. The inter-governmental relations programme is as yet undefined on that issue. So let us have a care. We are here to look after the constitution of our country not just, as we should from time to time, to satisfy the devolution wishes of individual parts.
Secondly, on finance, I cannot conceive as a Member of this House passing legislation which involves such a vast tax-raising power without the Bill including the fiscal framework under which that power is to be exercised. It is a negation of parliamentary duty. The present state of affairs—let us look at it in the simplest constitutional terms—requires, first, fiscal sharing by us all; secondly, fiscal responsibility; and, three, fiscal accountability. In my view, those are constitutional principles that should be common to the nation. If in Scotland there comes a time when spending significantly exceeds the tax revenue or borrowing powers are so far exceeded that the Government cannot repay their debt, who is to rescue that position? Who bears the risk? That is a question that I ask of Scotland as of the other three countries in this kingdom. Probably it will be London and the UK Government who bear the risk—the risk of whether, how and when to bail out such a disaster.
Extending the Committee period and giving it an extra day is simply inadequate. This House is not asking for delay; it is asking for the participant Governments to exercise fiscal responsibility and present the results to this House for our decision.
Lastly, I turn to potential adverse consequences—I use the word “potential” because they can be avoided with proper parliamentary and governmental action. On the fiscal framework, an English taxpayer would like to know, as would the Northern Ireland and the Welsh taxpayers, what the liability is of those citizens to a Scotland that might go wrong in financial terms. It is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it. Therefore, it is the obligation of all of us to ensure that those citizens receive the same protection as the Scots citizens receive in advancing their devolution.
Next, I turn to the no-detriment principle—and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, having asked the question, answered it to his own satisfaction. He is waiting for the Minister to give his answer to what is a tough question. How we put into comprehensible and persuasive words that which all the experts say is unworkable is quite a parliamentary challenge, and he deserves our sympathy—but it is a significant point. Who carries the burden is what taxpayers want to know.
The third point is on inter-governmental relations. How is everything going to work? There is no statute and there is a memorandum of understanding affecting the present arrangements, which is being reviewed. Who is reviewing it, and when are they going to report? The Government say that they are going to update it, but when? If we cannot make it work, what is the point of the legislation?
Fourthly, constitutional instability has to be avoided, especially when it concerns England. It is a simple proposition: with 50 million people out of the 60 million, we have to pay attention. English votes for English laws is the barest of beginnings; it is not a conclusion.
Lastly, I was surprised to see a clause such as Clause 68 in a constitutional Bill, creating a Henry VIII power for the Government to present secondary legislation on behalf of themselves and, presumably, the Scottish Government, to this Parliament without the opportunity for us to vote against it. That is astonishing.
We have been told that this measure has to be delivered, and I agree—but it has to be delivered following proper parliamentary process. Haste based on a hasty political vow is not the foundation for sensible legislation; expedition tempered by prudence is. All that the House is asking in many of the speeches heard today is that, in the conduct of this Bill, we get the chance to debate and decide on everything, and then we can say as parliamentarians that it has been delivered.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to listen to this debate and to the excellence and importance of all the contributions that have been made—not least that of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem in his maiden speech. I look forward to the rest of the contributions and, in particular, to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
I decided to speak in this debate for two reasons. First, the Bill concerns the whole of the United Kingdom and not just Scotland. Secondly, there is the principle of no detriment, which remains the central issue and is clearly not yet resolved.
The Bill has to be considered, not just from the perspective of the two Governments—the Scottish and UK Governments—but from the perspective of those parts of the United Kingdom that share a border with Scotland. Living in Newcastle upon Tyne, I have an acute awareness of cross-border issues.
I make it clear at the outset that I support the principles behind the Bill. The people of Scotland want enhanced devolution with the tax-raising powers that come with it, and it is also clear that devolution commands broad support from the UK’s political parties. But the no-detriment principles are primarily seen as a matter for the two Governments. We have had a lengthy debate as to what those two no-detriment principles mean and whether they are deliverable. I suggest, as part of this Second Reading, that a no detriment principle must surely extend to ensuring no detriment to those parts of the United Kingdom that share a border with Scotland and which could lose out—if, for example, the Scottish Government reduced air passenger duty by 50% or 100%. The impact of such a decision on airports south of the border might be significant. A small outflow of passengers chasing lower fares in Scotland could cause a movement of carriers. It would be of little help to the connectivity of the north-east of England if air passenger duty was not reduced there in line with whatever decision was taken to lower it in Scotland.
There is a further issue. If Scotland reduces APD, who meets the cost of it—the Scottish Government or the UK Government? Logically, the answer is the Scottish Government. If it is the Scottish Government, presumably it will come from the block grant, but the adjustment of the block grant is currently unknown. How will we know that it is fair to the rest of the United Kingdom or that an APD reduction is paid for by Scotland, rather than by the rest of the UK?
I am puzzled, as are many others, as to why this Bill is being considered before the fiscal framework has been agreed. I read the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies questioning a process in which the new fiscal framework is not part of the Bill. I want to quote from it, because it is highly material. Last week’s report said that,
“it is impossible to design a block grant adjustment system that satisfies the spirit of the ‘no detriment’ from the decision to devolve principle at the same time as fully achieving the ‘taxpayer fairness’ principle at least while the Barnett formula remains in place”.
As part of our discussions on the Bill, it needs to be clear how the block grant is to be calculated in future. The indexation of the Barnett formula during the last 36 years has resulted in serious anomalies. These must be addressed. If they are not, there is a real possibility that increases in taxes in the rest of the UK, which fund higher spending in the rest of the UK, could end up funding higher spending in Scotland through the block grant system without a corresponding increase in Scotland’s tax levels. The Smith commission talked in terms of taxpayer fairness. We must ensure that this is fulfilled for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps the reason the block grant adjustment system has not been agreed is that there have been very few formal meetings to get on with doing it. Papers for and reports of meetings are not in the public arena. However, in a Written Statement earlier this month, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the Joint Exchequer Committee had met four times since June 2015, that work was continuing and that both Governments aimed to complete this work as soon as possible to give the respective Parliaments time for due consideration of both the fiscal framework and the Scotland Bill. Broadly speaking, that is a meeting a month. It is hard to see how the timetable will be met, since the Bill is with us now and Committee stage approaches. We have, however, received ministerial assurances that we will have a fiscal framework by the time we reach Committee in the new year. I hope that proves to be the case.
In a compelling report, the second conclusion from the Institute for Fiscal Studies is very important. It says that,
“it may now be time for a more fundamental reassessment of how the devolved governments are financed”—
that includes Wales and Northern Ireland—
“including whether the Barnett formula should be retained. Reform of Barnett may remove some of the conflicts between the Smith commission’s principles. The Smith Commission parked these issues to one side by stating that the Barnett formula should be retained. Making the UK’s fiscal framework sustainable for the long term may require reopening the debate”.
We have heard that this problem over the Barnett formula has also been pursued by the Economic Affairs Committee in its excellent report published last Thursday. It, too, concluded that the Barnett formula should be replaced with a needs-based funding formula. That has to be right. It would be in line with the report published by the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on the Barnett formula in 2009.
In conclusion, we have a Bill to consider which, in principle, I want to support and which should be supported. However, we lack the information we need to consider it and which is central to getting the legislation right. I hope we will have the fiscal framework to consider at some point during Committee and that the Government will take seriously the need to revisit the Barnett formula as part of the block grant agreement that is reached.
Earl of Stair (CB)
My Lords, I broadly welcome the arrival of the Scotland Bill in this House. Although I have many concerns about many aspects of the Bill— most of which have been mentioned by other noble Lords—I hope it receives a successful, but not too speedy, passage to Royal Assent.
This is the second time I have given a Second Reading speech on a Scotland Bill. The first was on the initial devolution Bill and I very much hope that this will be the last. There are horrible similarities in the production of both, in so far as they have both resulted from promises made by leaders of parties seeking to ensure support from Scotland. In the first, it resulted in what became the Labour Government earning the support of Scottish Labour. In this, the second, it has resulted from the present Prime Minister retaining Scotland as part of the union. If the Government had spent a bit more time fighting for the union during the referendum, with less of a last-minute rush, I am sure that the result would have been far more conclusive and there would be no need for this present Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who is sadly not in his place, for leading the inquiry that resulted in a degree of harmony among the parties and led to this Bill. I know there are supporters of independence—who may or may not be members of the SNP—who are watching carefully the outcome of this Bill. They are prepared to continue to accept the union if they deem Scotland to have received fair treatment and greater recognition as a result. I am sure that there are some in the SNP of a similar opinion. As has been said on many occasions, I am sad that there are no members of the SNP in this House. I hope that they will accept from afar the amendments that may come from this place as being for the future benefit of all in Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom.
I am keen that this important piece of legislation should pass quickly because I do not wish future changes to the powers of the Scottish Government to become entangled in the election campaign in Scotland next year. If we fail to establish exactly how the new powers will be implemented, I can see the Bill becoming a political football in the election campaign, with an attendant loss of credibility. Although I would like to see the Bill pass quickly, it should not be at the expense of too short a time being allocated to complete all its stages. I urge the Government not to underestimate the importance of this Bill and to allow as much time as is needed to ensure that all the detail is tied in correctly.
I hope that the Scottish Government may also use some of their new powers to modify the Scotland Act 1998, and to reappraise and possibly reassess some of their own working practices in the Scottish Parliament. To my mind, a significant error was made during the debate on what was then the first Scotland Bill: the determination that a revising chamber of the Parliament would not be needed and that the committee structure would suffice. Ministers on the then government Benches assured the House that there was no possibility that the committee system could be dominated by any one party, and certainly not by the party in power. Sadly, that has not proved to be the case. I earnestly hope that, when the Bill is passed and with significant money-raising powers, there will be no opportunity for one party to overwhelm all others.
Another main area of concern in the Bill is the fiscal framework, which has been raised by virtually every other speaker in this debate. With the potential to raise so much money under the new powers, the Government are assuring us that the fiscal framework will be complete before the Bill is passed. However, I regret to say that I think the description of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, of the current state of the fiscal framework and what will be required is the most accurate.
It is vital that information is available to the people of Scotland on all aspects of VAT and taxation before the start of elections next year. Clause 17, on air passenger duty, is a welcome addition, and I am sure it will be a tremendous boost to transport and development in Scotland. I hope that some of the income can be invested in the impressive, but mostly mothballed, Prestwick airport, but not to the detriment of other airports in the United Kingdom.
However taxation is not the only part of the future finances of Scotland. The Barnett formula still needs to be considered and amended. Until all these matters are addressed, I find it difficult to understand how the Bill can be passed in any form of sound condition. It is vital that it is clear at the end of the passage of the Bill where responsibility lies for expenditure and, more importantly, that there is accountability for all the money that will be raised through taxation. There must be no chance of any grey areas whereby blame can be passed from Parliament to Parliament.
Finally, it must be remembered that we are here with this Bill because of politics. I believe that the majority of voters in last year’s referendum did not wish for a change to the status quo, irrespective of posturing in the lead-up to the referendum and before the vow was made. I earnestly hope that when this Bill is passed it will be in such a condition that not only will it be sound but it will restore the confidence of the electorate in Scotland.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, to speak for the first time in your Lordships’ House is a great honour and very humbling. I am delighted to follow the noble Earl in this debate. I take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Mackay and Lord Hope, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and many others for all their kind words since I have been in the House. I extend heartfelt thanks to all who have made my introduction and my early days in this place so smooth. The doorkeepers, the clerks, the attendants, the Library, catering and all the officials and other staff are due a very big thank you. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I am sure I will have many opportunities to call on their advice in future months and years.
To my supporters at my introduction, my noble friends Lord Plumb and Lady Byford, warm thanks are due. In many respects, the fact that I entered politics at all is due to my noble friend Lord Plumb, who many years ago recruited me to work for the European Democrats, the family of Conservatives in the European Parliament. I had the good fortune to work on the same shadow ministerial team as my noble friend Lady Byford. I yield to no one in my admiration for my noble friends’ collective knowledge and experience of farming, the countryside and rural affairs, which they share with my noble friend Lord Jopling, a former Minister for Agriculture in the other place.
I was born in Edinburgh to a line of pharmacists. Anybody who over the years went to the chemist in Elm Row or to George Cowie chemist on Dublin Street or to the chemist in North Berwick could have been served by my grandfather or one of my uncles. My father, my uncle and my brother took a medical path, but I followed my mother’s interests in languages and history and embarked upon a legal career. I studied law at Edinburgh University. I remember being a student of JDB Mitchell, who introduced the first six-month course on the implications for British constitutional law of joining the European Union in 1973. I entered the Faculty of Advocates in 1982 and benefited from the rigorous training. At the time, professional training was serving a Bar apprenticeship with a firm of solicitors before undertaking a period of devilling with a devil master. Both parts of my training straddled the longest case in Scottish legal history, in which Strathclyde Regional Council’s attempt to add fluoride to the water supply was thwarted by a pensioner who wore dentures who petitioned the Court of Session because she could see no personal benefit from adding a potential carcinogen to her drinking water supply. Needless to say, the council lost. I was fortunate to have as my apprentice master the much revered Evan Weir of Simpson & Marwick, who ultimately became the Auditor of the Court of Session. My first duty as a Bar apprentice was debt collecting, but my most memorable experience was being asked to take evidence productions to court in Mr Weir’s car. Imagine my consternation when the vehicle broke down outside the then venue of the sheriff court. It was not my most career-enhancing moment as I faced Mr Weir, who questioned my driving skills rather more than the age or unreliability of his car.
The fact that Scots law is closer to Roman law stood me in good stead when I subsequently practised European law in Brussels before going on to advise the Conservatives in the European Parliament. Therefore my background is very much in European law, European politics, transport, farming, the environment and the countryside. I was transport spokesman in the European Parliament for a number of years, held a number of shadow ministerial positions in the other place, and for five years I was honoured to chair the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons, which covered all aspects of farming, flooding, food production and animal health.
My political career took a circuitous route, with 10 years representing part of Essex and Suffolk in the European Parliament, and then the Vale of York and subsequently Thirsk, Malton and Filey in the other place. I am immensely proud of my Scottish heritage and roots, and particularly of our Clan Mackintosh motto, “Touch not the cat bot a glove”. I leave its interpretation to your Lordships.
I must not forget my Danish roots. My mother was born and bred in Copenhagen. Denmark’s loss of independence when occupied by Nazi Germany in the Second World War is a constant reminder to me and my family of why a strong Europe has ensured democracy across this continent in the intervening years. I firmly believe that the union of the United Kingdom and the UK’s union—a customs union and single market—with the European Union are the bedrocks of our economic strength and place in the world. I counsel all those who refer to the Schleswig-Holstein question to beware of the fact that the conclusion of the war in 1864 led to the loss of one-third of Danish territory to Prussia. That is one thing we should be careful of in the debate today.
This debate is important because it makes good all the conclusions and recommendations of the Smith commission and the political agreement of the main parties. However, I have two main concerns. One was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and others and is the implications for airports in the north of England of air passenger duty being confirmed as part of the revenue-raising powers. I would like to understand how that will be calculated, how that will be raised by Scottish airports and what economic impact it will have on English competitors, particularly in the north of England. My other concern relates to not just the fiscal framework, which is being discussed at length by noble Lords, but the sheer number of secondary regulations giving legislative teeth to the Bill before the House today. In particular, Clause 14 has a number of subsections that leave much to secondary legislation. When the Minister replies, will he say to what extent there will be parliamentary scrutiny not just of the fiscal framework but of the enabling regulations, which presumably will not meet the same timetable as the rest of the Bill?
The fact that the main parties agree and support the main provisions of the Bill does not negate the absolute need for parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses. The statute book numbers many Acts on which all parties agreed that led to enormous practical difficulties of implementation. Two immediately spring to mind: the Act setting up the Child Support Agency and the Dangerous Dogs Act.
This debate and this legislation are historic. The Bill gives effect to the Smith commission, and makes good the promise made by the Prime Minister in the immediate aftermath of the Scottish referendum last year not just to the people of Scotland but to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Her speech was excellent and we look forward to very many more. She and I have both been advocates at the Scots Bar, but unlike many parliamentarians she has been both an MEP and an MP. Our training as advocates helps us to think straight—I like to hope so, at any rate. She will find this House full of dedication and good humour and—usually—engaging in the pursuit of excellence. I wish her every success and happiness here in the years to come. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, on a characteristically memorable speech. It seems like only yesterday that I was his junior counsel in a thoroughly traumatic and tragic murder case. We are extremely glad to see him here and welcome his great experience, including as chancellor of St Andrews University, and his substantial expertise. His point about Scotland’s security will be an important marker in a debate which looks as if it will continue for a long time.
It will come as no surprise that I support the Bill and wish the Minister success with it. I do not think this House should try to halt its progress, as recommended by the Economic Affairs Committee. I fully appreciate the importance of the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments agreeing on a fair and workable fiscal framework in which to embed the new financial arrangements, but it should surely not prove beyond the wit of man and woman to reach such an agreement in the near future without any intervention from this House which would be both misinterpreted and badly received. When he winds up, it would be helpful if the Minister informed the House of his willingness to update it on the negotiations between the Treasury and the Scottish Government. I have a past interest in the first Scottish Parliament, since I served two terms as an MSP. I remember the excitement, enthusiasm and optimism of the opening day, which included a fly-past by Concorde and the Red Arrows.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Does my noble friend really mean that he would like to see the Bill pass out of this Parliament, even if we have not got the fiscal framework and even if that resulted in Scotland being greatly disadvantaged?
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My noble friend misunderstands the purpose of what I was saying. It would of course be 100% better if we had the fiscal framework before us. I hope the Minister will assure us that he will report back to the House on the progress of his discussions with the Scottish Government, because that is very important. However, if a Bill went through this Parliament on a subject which came under the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament and that Parliament found it wholly unacceptable, it would not be implemented. I am not too concerned about the Minister asking for more time. He should be given the benefit of the doubt and supported. I hope he will come back with an agreement and that his confidence has not been misplaced.
I served as a member of the Calman commission which first reviewed the progress of devolution in the UK. It reported in 2009 and proposed an increase in the Parliament’s powers that is just beginning to come into force. We now have a Scotland Bill before us which gives extensive new powers to Holyrood promised in the famous vow. It is worth stressing that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, who chaired the all-party commission, is on record as stating that he believes that the promises in the vow have been met by the legislation proposed so far, as does Gordon Brown, who intervened so passionately during the referendum campaign. I very much hope that the new powers over setting a Scottish income tax and welfare spending will be available by 2017. This will mean that all parties in Scotland will have to publish their tax and spending plans in their manifestos for the election next May. For the very first time there should be no hiding place, especially for those who have taken refuge for years in simply blaming the United Kingdom Government for every financial problem. Accountability and transparency will be greatly enhanced and it is to be hoped that, instead of arguing endlessly about process, all Scotland’s politicians will have to convince the voters of the benefits of their policies.
One of the SNP’s former top advisers recently declared, in a powerful critique, that the economic plan for independence which it put forward last year is “broken beyond repair”, and that the Scottish Government currently have no credible alternative to Tory financial plans. For their part, however, unionists must not appear grudging and disgruntled at the progress of events since September 2014. There have been more than enough predictions of doom and gloom. Instead, I welcome the reality that the Scottish electorate will soon have the opportunity to make very important decisions about the kind of Scotland in which they wish to work, live and care for their families. I hope they will conclude that this legislation offers them a constitutional framework within which they can enjoy the best of both worlds: having one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world, operating within the wider parameters of a very strong and extremely successful United Kingdom.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who is very often a travelling companion on the east coast line between London, Northumberland and the Scottish borders. It is also a pleasure to pay tribute to and welcome the two maiden speakers in this debate: the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, alias Ming, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
The Bill gives legislative effect to the vow and to the outcome of the Smith commission. Once the vow was made, it needed to be delivered. In that sense, I support the Bill and the speech made by my noble friend Lord McAvoy from our Front Bench. Living in England’s most northerly constituency, Berwick-upon-Tweed, I am affected and concerned by the debate on Scotland and its future role within the UK. The referendum vote was the most important one in my political life, although I did not actually have a vote to exercise. The Bill gives effect to the vow and I respect that but, from my own experience of canvassing for Better Together in the borders, particularly in the last 10 days of the referendum campaign, I agree with my noble friend Lord Maxton that the vow was not the reason why Scots voted no. It was certainly not mentioned to me on the doorstep. More effective was the splendid speech by Gordon Brown, reclaiming the saltire for the whole of Scotland, not just the yes campaign.
I was also struck by a comment made in an earlier debate by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who correctly pointed out that most of the postal votes had been cast well before the vow. As I understand it, those postal votes very much favoured the no side and were therefore not influenced by the vow at the last minute. I also clearly remember Nicola Sturgeon, now First Minister, saying on 16 September that the Scottish people were not daft and would not be taken in by the vow—and, only five days later, Alex Salmond saying that people in Scotland were tricked into voting no because of the vow. This seems highly inconsistent on the part of the SNP. On this occasion, I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that the electorate were not daft and knew what they were voting against, just as much as what they were voting for.
In many ways, I would prefer all the matters in the Bill to have been part of the constitutional convention approach, which a lot of noble Lords have put forward in the course of this debate and over the last few months. There are all kinds of implications as a result, not least for areas neighbouring Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, pointed out. That obviously resonated with me in particular. I also pay tribute to the tremendous speech by my noble friend Lord Hollick in presenting the findings of the Economic Affairs Committee. I hope that the Government will very much take into account the views he expressed.
Some noble Lords in this debate, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have spoken about federalism and how keen they are to see a federal solution. I know that my noble friend Lord Foulkes also takes a keen interest in this. To a certain extent, it depends what you mean by federalism. I say this particularly coming from the north-east of England because, in many ways, our natural allies over many elections were in Scotland and Wales. There is a great worry that if there is simply an England-wide solution or an English Parliament, we could be more marginalised than we are in the United Kingdom Parliament. Although the Government seem now to be embarking on a programme of devolution it seems very piecemeal and aspects of it very much worry me, such as inflicting elected mayors on areas that have already voted against them. That seems against the very principle of localism and regionalism. I hope that regional devolution is not dead. It is true that the past vote in the north-east went strongly against it, in rather different circumstances, but that was by a rather similar majority to the rejection of the Welsh Assembly the first time around in Wales. So I do not lose hope of having a devolved situation in the largest by far, in population, of the four countries of our union.
Nicola Sturgeon recently spoke on “Desert Island Discs” about how she had come into politics and wanted to become involved in the SNP as a result of the effect of Mrs Thatcher’s policies on Scotland. Again, coming from the north-east of England where we, like Scotland, had three industries—shipbuilding, coal and steel—that went into a massive decline at once, I was very sad that she concluded that separation was the better road rather than economic and social solidarity across the whole United Kingdom, which is the approach that I would much prefer to see.
I accept the Bill but, at the same time, I urge the Government to accept the idea of the constitutional convention and to look urgently at ways of strengthening the union, particularly across the border in areas such as mine adjoining Scotland, so as to make a success of it—and not to allow it to drift apart and, possibly, break up.
Lord Lyell (Con)
My Lords, it is now 44 years since I made my first humble speeches in your Lordships’ House and I think it is the fourth time we have discussed major events dealing with my homeland of Scotland. This evening I seem to be on a downward tide, very happy and content with much of what is in the Bill. It is interesting that the Scottish Parliament is now up and running and is a great success, and we see around us noble Lords who have served, such as my noble friend who spoke before me, and others who are still serving, with a dual hat.
We are discussing a different concept tonight from what I call the constitutional past in that we are doing something fairly quietly but apposite. We are downsizing from what I would call a federal block—known in Scotland as “Waste monster”, or Westminster—and looking at what is, and I hope will continue to be, a very successful devolved system in Edinburgh. We are looking at how these two Parliaments can react well and without too much friction. Before us this evening we have a decent stab—I will use that tactful term—to confirm what already works with the Scottish Parliament, but I worry about some particular gaps in that happy scene.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, on his fortitude in having sat here throughout the debate. In fact, he is one of a fairly large number of noble Lords who have not budged from their positions. I also thank him, my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others who sat on the committee that produced this report. My noble friend Lord Forsyth put things far more forcefully, if I may say, than I would be able to. This is a really excellent report on the financial aspects and indeed what I hope may be the fiscal framework. I will just consider two or three small paragraphs from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick. We will be able to discuss them in much more detail when we come to the income tax aspect of the Bill.
If your Lordships glance at paragraph 160 of the Hollick report, there are the immortal words of Professor Holtham, who praises the Barnett formula saying that it is “extremely simple”. I agree with him, since my main motto, both in your Lordships’ House and out, is KISS—it is nothing to do with affection but is “Keep it simple, stupid”; I am only an accountant not a major lawyer. Above all, keep it simple.
I refer to paragraphs 120 to 133 in the Hollick report, which is beautifully put together and has been praised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I am very interested in paragraph 122, which points out that so far the Scottish Parliament has made no use of the income tax powers. You might call me a cynical so and so, but I believe that is a mixed blessing since some of the thoughts I have seen in the Scottish media, both in print and in the electronic media, make my blood run cold.
In paragraph 130, there is marvellous advice from PWC, which I understand is one of the leading firms of chartered accountants. It points out, “For goodness sake, get the system right”. In three words, “Don’t rush it”. Those words, I hope, will be taken on board by my noble friend the Minister when he comes to wind up and indeed will colour my thoughts on what is before us this evening.
I come to paragraph 131 in the Hollick report. Although I shall be out of order and my noble friend on the Front Bench may kick my shins or do other things to me, I wish to pay the highest compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, whom I call my noble colleague. I am not too sure about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, but I think that I and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, are the only two members of the Institute of Chartered Accounts of Scotland actually sitting in your Lordships’ House. As a member of the institute, I cannot praise highly enough anybody in Scotland who has done what the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has done in gathering politicians and every kind of economic outlook. He has seen Scotland on a global basis and what he has managed to do with his Smith agreement is worthy of the very highest praise. Certainly I bask in the mini-glow of the chartered accountants as a junior member with the noble Lord, Lord Smith.
I am interested in looking at the wise words, in paragraph 131, of Ms Charlotte Barbour, one of the tax directors of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. She pointed out that, as far as income tax is concerned, which is the main thrust of what I see in front of us this evening, there is the issue of identifying who is a Scottish taxpayer. The definition of that, she says, will be “difficult”. Well, in the words of the Bible, I say, “Verily, verily”—indeed, it will. My noble friend who is right in front of me and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, and others may well remember that I was entitled to lead on the definition of a “Scottish taxpayer” in 1998. If your Lordships go back and look at the Hansard at that time, they will find that the Government had some difficulty in explaining to me and to the House why somebody on a ferry which was tied up at the ports of Cairnryan or Stranraer would, for the purposes of the Scotland Bill, be defined as being resident in Scotland overnight. It is there in black and white. I hope that it has been changed, and indeed there is room for it to be removed.
Paragraph 133 of the Hollick report refers to the fact that the definition of a Scottish taxpayer will be based on an individual’s main place of residence. I think it was the very kind lady from HMRC who pointed out that for the “vast majority” of the population this would be simple. Perhaps she is watching this debate on television this evening. If so, I ask her to look around at your Lordships. Perhaps I may quote a personal example. My tax affairs used to be dealt with in Dundee. I have one or two interests south of the border and, because of that, my tax details were then dealt with at Leeds and Shipley. I am given to understand that, because at some stage in my career I took paid employment as a Minister—in this House, not in the other place; no one elected me there—all my affairs are, and will be, dealt with in Cardiff. At the moment, there are three or four centres that deal with my affairs, and I am just a simple Scottish taxpayer. It is pushing at the limits of reality for an HMRC representative to say that this is going to be quite simple for every Scottish taxpayer. In my case, she might find that it is just a little more than that.
The Bill before us certainly provides the framework for something which is acceptable and reasonable, and which is very practical for Scotland, let alone for Scotland’s finances, and I hope that your Lordships will accept that the further detail can be brought forward in Committee. I congratulate the Minister on what he has done today in bringing everything before us but, above all, I congratulate my noble colleague—if I may call him that as a fellow accountant—the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I can save some time by saying right away that I cannot explain the second no-detriment principle, even though I am a member of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee under the very able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, whose amendment I support. I believe that it is impossible to properly debate this Bill unless we have before us the details of the fiscal framework. I believe it is impossible because those details will be critical in determining the nature of the relationship between the rest of the UK and Scotland, and the fiscal framework may well have implications for the future arrangements for Wales and Northern Ireland. If the framework is flawed, as it could easily be, it could lead to friction and to regular disputes. Such friction and regular disputes would weaken the union—the exact opposite of the purpose of this Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said, our committee identified seven problems that need to be addressed. They are all important but the first is the absence of the fiscal framework and the timetable for the Bill. As things stand, it is not certain that your Lordships will have the opportunity to examine the fiscal framework, and it is entirely unclear, this Bill having been through the Commons, how MPs could have any opportunity to debate any proposed fiscal framework in any meaningful way. This matters because the fiscal framework will determine the funding that the devolved Administration will receive from the UK Government. Our report discusses, for example, the question of the adjustment of the block grant for Scotland after the initial settlement.
There are many ways of making that adjustment and we examined three in detail. All three showed significant differences in the size of the block grant received by Scotland. For example, in the longer term, there was an annual difference of £1.3 billion between two of the methods we discussed. Without a statement of underlying principles and without being clear what risks the Scottish Government should take responsibility for, it is not possible to argue coherently in favour of one method over another, but the argument needs to be had. The funding differences can be very, very significant. Without the fiscal framework, we do not know which adjustment method is proposed; we do not know on what basis it is proposed; and we do not know its revenue consequences.
Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, in its report on the Bill of last Friday, commented on the situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, noted. It said:
“In the absence of any information about the fiscal framework, it will be impossible for the House to assess whether or not the Bill will cause detriment to all or part of the United Kingdom”.
The word “detriment” of course appears in the discussion of the Bill in another guise. The Economic Affairs Committee concluded, after hearing evidence from experts, that this second no-detriment principle was not workable and that it was in fact a recipe for an unending series of future disagreements about what constituted detriment and about its value. This needs to be dealt with in any fiscal framework. The Government need to explain how they intend to interpret and to implement the second no-detriment principle.
There is also the issue of what borrowing powers will be granted to Scotland. This is obviously a vital question: getting this wrong would put the whole deal at risk. Even framing it in the wrong way would be very damaging. For example, any no-bailout provision would, I think, look like a repudiation of Scotland as a part of the United Kingdom and would, in any case, almost certainly be ignored by the markets. The Constitution Committee quotes the Government on providing the fiscal framework for parliamentary scrutiny. It says that the Government have said that they,
“aim to complete work on the fiscal framework ‘as soon as possible in order to give respective Parliaments time for due consideration of both the Fiscal Framework and the Scotland Bill’”.
It goes on to say:
“It is not clear how the Government expect the House of Commons to give ‘due consideration’ ... when the Commons has already passed the Scotland Bill to the House of Lords”.
No, it is not clear. Perhaps the Minister can explain how the Government intend to allow the Commons this “due consideration” and whether it will include the opportunity to amend. As things stand, it is entirely possible that the only legislature to have an opportunity to scrutinise the fiscal framework will be the Scottish Parliament. This is obviously wrong and completely unacceptable.
As the Constitution Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee suggest, we should consider delaying parts of the Committee stage until after the publication of the fiscal framework. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plain-English and unequivocal response, making a commitment to arrange matters so that this House can examine the fiscal framework in Committee.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to raise the subject of speeches and time guidelines, which is no reflection on recent speeches. The House may like to know that if noble Lords adhere to the time limit of six minutes for speaking, the debate may finish at a reasonable hour to allow time for the next business.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The noble Viscount was good enough to tell me that he was about to make that announcement and that it was not directed only at me.
It is a privilege to take part in a debate which has included a remarkable maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, whose international performances I have been admiring for about 55 years, and a wonderful maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whom I first remember admiring as an extraordinarily active Member of the European Parliament.
It is a privilege for me, too, to serve on the Economic Affairs Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick. I got to realise quite how big a privilege that was when the committee went to Edinburgh to take evidence in the Scottish Parliament. As we drove in from the airport, the streets were lined with cheering crowds, which is not normally how a Glasgow man like me is received in Edinburgh. It even brought a wintry smile to the patrician features of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. But then our driver explained that the reason for the crowds was that we happened to be in Edinburgh on the day that the Queen became our longest serving monarch ever, that the streets were blocked and that we would now walk to the Scottish Parliament.
I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said. I cannot see how we can do our proper scrutiny job without seeing the fiscal framework, and I support the amendment in the noble Lord’s name. Of course we must pass the Bill, but we need to see this crucial part of its underpinning, which will explain how the system that we are about to legislate for will work.
For me, there are three unknowns—I hope the Minister will be able to throw light on them—that have to be made clear before we complete our scrutiny of the Bill. The first is the mechanism for the adjustment to the block grant, year by year, when Scotland is retaining virtually all its income tax paid in Scotland. How will that be done in a way that can be shown to be fair not only to Scotland but to the rest of the United Kingdom? The second is the limits on Scottish borrowing powers. The Economic Affairs Committee report rejects, in my view absolutely correctly, the idea that there should be a no-bailout rule. For so long as Scotland remains part of the union, in extremis, Scotland would be bailed out—of course it would. But that means that there have to be very clear, very strict limits on borrowing, and the House is entitled to know what they are. The third is that we need to know what arrangements are envisaged for future transparency. If the current negotiation on the fiscal framework, behind closed doors, is to be a precedent for the future, we will not see an enduring settlement but enduring dispute. There has to be an open, transparent, principles-based way of proceeding in future.
I want briefly to touch on two aspects of the Smith commission report that I personally regret. One is reflected very clearly in the Bill and we need to work on it, and the other is accepted by all parties and regretted by me. First, I am uneasy about the choice of personal income tax to provide the bulk of devolved revenue raising. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, reminded us, the union is responsible and will remain responsible for the individual’s safety—security, defence, development aid, foreign affairs and so on. Would that truth not be more readily perceived by the individual if he believed that he paid his share of the cost of that safety through his income tax? Think of an analogy with council tax: could he not receive a statement indicating where the money was going and how it would be spent? It seems to me, in principle, wrong. I am not arguing against the quantum of devolved revenue raising; I am arguing against the choice of this particular tax. But that pass is sold, and I am sad about that.
Secondly, the other pass that is sold and that I am also sad about is our old friend Barnett. I do not need to rehearse the arguments because we all know how unsatisfactory the Barnett formula is: introduced in 1979 as a temporary expedient, it was always intended to be replaced quite soon. Its financial effects now were explained to the House this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, and its deficiencies were explored in detail in the Select Committee report of 2009 under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. On looking at the Barnett formula, everybody has always agreed that it should be replaced by a needs-based formula. Sadly, that is not going to happen because the vow decreed that the Barnett formula should continue and the Smith commission felt bound by that.
The Economic Affairs Committee report correctly states that the committee unanimously thought that that decision was wrong. The report recommends that the Government consider the case for,
“introducing a needs based approach to funding devolved administrations”.
Last week, all guns blazing and shooting from the hip, the Scottish Government came out against that recommendation. That is unworthy and short-sighted.
Barnett is not demonstrably fair, and is seen as unfair by many in Wales and some in England. An enduring settlement cannot be based on perceived unfairness. Of course, I do not believe that fair allocation necessarily means equal allocation. The cost of providing services such as health, education, transport and social services to an agreed UK standard is plainly higher in Sutherland than it is in Surrey. Peripherality, sparsity of population, population age structures, dependency ratios, incidence of chronic ill health and life expectancy all differ across the kingdom. It should not be impossible—the Australians do it now—to devise a system for fairly assessing relative costs, and so needs, on a continuing basis. Of course there will be disputes about the weighting of the various factors, but these disputes would be containable if clearly based in a framework of principle.
I do not think it follows that any change to the Barnett formula would be a change for the worse for the Scots. I believe that under any fair system, the Welsh would certainly gain compared with the status quo now, and England would undoubtedly receive less per capita. I do not know where the Scots would end up, but I do not agree with their assumption that what we have, we hold—that there must be no change to the Barnett formula because it is bound to be for the worse.
The real gain would actually be stability. It would be possible to explain inequalities, how they arise and why they are fair. Current inequalities are the product of a 1979 back-of the-envelope formula that really needs replacing. But that pass is sold, and I am sad about that too.
The difficulty we are in is the result of piecemeal devolution driven by pragmatism, not principles. The underlying principles have not been clearly enunciated. Devo-max was not an option on the referendum ballot paper, and that was a mistake. But that is what we are now getting—devo-max defined on the hoof in the heat of a referendum campaign.
Of course we must pass this Bill—we are where we are—but once we have done that, I hope we can sit back and think. I hope we can think about the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, for a new Act of Union. I hope we can think about the advice we get from our Constitutional Committee, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, this afternoon:
“The UK Government and the major UK-wide political parties need urgently to devise and articulate a coherent vision for the shape and structure of the United Kingdom, without which there cannot be constitutional stability”.
I strongly agree with that.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, that the case for a constitutional convention grows stronger every day. The essence of that convention would be that it meet in public, in total transparency. That way, if any participant or group of participants in a convention show themselves unwilling to subscribe to sensible principles and genuinely to seek an enduring settlement, that would be evident to all.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating both maiden speakers on their excellent contributions. In another place and for many years, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has been a very effective and exemplary Member of Parliament for North East Fife, where I live—and, as it happens, not too far away from Pittenweem.
In my remarks today, I should like to connect three aspects: first, transparency and co-operation, in particular between the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments and Governments; secondly, consistent with the principle of devolution, the role of Holyrood in transferring powers to Scottish regions and local communities; and thirdly, following from that, the scope of Scottish devolution for evolving good and better national practice which, as a result, can extend elsewhere.
In his very useful report, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, stresses, as he has also done today, the importance of finding good new systems and arrangements for co-operation. As instruments between the two Governments, we have the joint ministerial committee and the joint exchequer committee. Bilateral government work will clearly assist the successful implementation of more devolved tax and welfare. Both Parliaments and Governments must receive regular updates on funding plans and fiscal changes. Not least, on all matters and at all times, we should seek improved transparency and public awareness arising from proper levels of co-operation between the two Parliaments and Governments.
Yet how confident are we that these procedures will actually be followed? To encourage them, during the passage of this Bill, which further measures does my noble friend the Minister believe to be necessary?
Political devolution means the transfer of powers from a centre, such as Westminster, to the regions and localities—in this case, of Scotland within the United Kingdom. That is why, consistent with the principle of devolution, Holyrood, as the Scottish centre of power, has the obligation, wherever possible, to pass on functions and powers to Scottish regions and localities.
However, so far, does my noble friend the Minister consider that this aspect has been sufficiently addressed? If not, what relevant amendments to the Bill might he now have in mind to put forward?
Where it promotes localism, one great benefit of devolution is more accurate readings of national performance; and hence a far better understanding of how national success should be defined in the first place. Hitherto, for the latter, we have tended to use the measures of gross domestic product only. Yet on its own GDP does not tell the whole story. Now, as a result, we refer not just to GDP but to a combination of GDP and other indicators, such as those of the satisfaction or well-being of people where they live and in their communities. The criteria for those assessments are currently detailed by the OECD and are increasingly addressed in the United Kingdom, as well as by our 47 Council of Europe states and their Strasbourg parliament, where I have the honour to serve.
In this respect, does my noble friend the Minister agree that localism or devolution, provided that it is properly carried out, can have the beneficial effect of evolving far better practice both in this country and elsewhere? For the same reason, here and elsewhere, proper devolution can hugely reinvigorate democracy.
Nevertheless, we must advocate the full journey of devolution beyond Edinburgh to Scotland’s regions and localities. Previously, too much emphasis on that would have drawn the accusation of upstaging or undermining the role of nation states. Fortunately, that is no longer the case. Instead, devolution or localism can now be viewed as a national force for fairer standards, and an international facilitator of well-being and stability.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Before he became an earl, he was actually the Tory candidate in the famous Hamilton by-election in 1978. Of course, he bears a very famous name in that, in 1924 or 1925 I believe, one of his distant ancestors—standing as a prohibitionist —defeated Winston Churchill in Dundee.
I too congratulate the two maiden speakers, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem—or Ming; I have known him for a very long time. He has had three distinguished careers: first, as an athlete; secondly, at the Bar, where he was a very distinguished lawyer; and thirdly, in politics—and I hope that career will continue. He also had a fourth one; I think I am the only person in this House who can claim to have played rugby against the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. He always accused me of being a dirty player, and he was not as distinguished on the rugby field as he was elsewhere—I am sorry he is not here to hear that.
Almost everything I wanted to say has been said. I will concentrate on two aspects. First, we must stop bringing together devolution and nationalism; they are not the same thing. We must emphasise and keep emphasising that point. At the end of the day, devolution is a democratic process—and I am not saying that the SNP is not a democratic party. That is why some of us campaigned for devolution. I know that some people opposite opposed it, but the fact is that we were in favour of devolution because Scotland had become out of sync. Therefore, it was right that we devolved power to a Scottish Parliament. The alternative was to get rid of Scotland, to be honest. When my late friend Donald Dewar said that devolution was a process—although I gather it has been denied that he ever said it—what he meant was that democracy should go below the level of the Scottish Parliament to local authorities and local communities, and that is what democracy means. It means people taking decisions at the point at which they want and need to take them. Devolution has to be a two-way process. Some powers should perhaps be taken back from the Scottish Parliament and given back to this Parliament, or even given to the European Parliament; I do not know. The fact is that devolution is a two-way process and it has to be.
Secondly, we have had a long argument and, quite rightly, a discussion about fiscal autonomy and the fiscal arrangements being made by the two parties, and a large part of me agrees with everything that has been said about that. But a part of me also says that it does not really matter, because whatever the fiscal arrangements this Government come to with the Scottish Government, at some point or other the Scottish Government are going to say no. What the SNP wants is a fight. It does not really care what the arrangements will be. It just wants a grievance. What it wants is an independent Scotland. We have to stop appeasing it, and to some extent this Bill is an appeasement for the SNP. That is what the vow was; it is what the Smith commission was, to some extent. It was an attempt to appease the Scottish nationalists in their demand for the nationalist case. We have to stop that. We have to start fighting them.
We might start fighting them by asking a very simple question: why do you want to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom? What is it that divides us? I speak with an English accent because I was brought up in Oxford. My mother and father both spoke with Glasgow accents, Scottish accents, because they were brought up in Scotland. My brothers and my sister live in England. My nieces, nephews, grand-nieces and grand-nephews live in England. They do not consider themselves Scottish. My brother may consider himself Scottish, but he does not really consider himself a Scot. At the end of the day, I am typical of many people. What is it that divides us from the rest of the United Kingdom? The answer is: nothing. Religion and language do not divide us. There is not even a natural frontier between England and Scotland any more. Until we start asking those basic questions of, “Why do you want to go? What is it that divides us?”, and start fighting nationalism, I fear that Scotland may very well slip uncontrollably down the route towards becoming an independent country, which I personally would regret and I will fight all my political life—what is left of it—against.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, for the past 18 years, we have seen significant measures of constitutional change enacted on an almost unprecedented scale. For most of those 18 years I have drawn attention to the fact that the measures have been disparate and, crucially, discrete. There has been no attempt to locate them within an intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change. They derive from no clear view of the constitution as a constitution. The constitution of the United Kingdom is being fundamentally altered without any attempt to stand back and make sense of where we are going.
We have before us just one of many measures of major constitutional importance, but one that, as the report of the Constitution Committee puts it, devolves powers,
“in a reactive and ad hoc way”.
I declare an interest as a member of the committee. The Bill derives from what the committee identified as a “disjointed approach”. We have a Bill that is rushed and coheres with no clear view of constitutional change. Perhaps when my noble friend the Minister comes to reply to the debate he will explain what, precisely, is the intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change taken by the Government.
The report of the Constitution Committee draws out the problems with the Bill’s constitutional implications. I wish to pursue problems associated with Clauses 1 and 2 that build on and go beyond the committee’s report.
There is a problem with the first two clauses, in terms of not only the basic issues they raise regarding parliamentary sovereignty but the very purpose of legislating. They have been drawn up in the face of the Government’s own guidance on drafting legislation. I quote paragraph 10.9 of the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation, published in July, which states:
“Finally, when writing instructions it is important to keep in mind the general rule that a bill should only contain legislative propositions. These are propositions that change the law—they bring about a legal state of affairs that would not exist apart from the bill. It can sometimes be tempting to ask the drafter to prepare a provision that is not intended to change the law but is instead designed to serve some political purpose or to explain or emphasise an existing law. However, non-legislative provisions of this sort are likely to go wrong because the courts will be inclined to attribute legal effect to them on the grounds that Parliament does not legislate unnecessarily—and the legal effect attributed may be one the Government could not have predicted”.
The Scottish Parliament is already permanent under the terms of the Scotland Act; it remains in being unless this Parliament legislates otherwise. New subsections (1) and (2), introduced by Clause 1, do not make it any more permanent than it already is. Under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, this Parliament could legislate to suspend or abolish the Scottish Parliament. One could provide, as new subsection (3) does, for a referendum to be held before it is abolished, but this Parliament could legislate to remove this provision. The purpose of new subsections (1) and (2) is therefore not clear; they add nothing unless they seek to create some body of higher law and thus conflict with what has been termed the cornerstone of the British constitution.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I am fascinated by what the noble Lord is saying, but the problem is that the Smith agreement was to create these undertakings in law. The difficulty I have is how you can reconcile that proposal with the memorandum that has been quoted, and then provide a formula that the courts can adjudicate on. I find that extremely difficult, but one cannot slide round it by saying that this is simply a political exercise.
Lord Norton of Louth
I agree with the noble and learned Lord. It puts us in a very difficult situation because there is a commitment to it, but it creates problems by being embodied in the Bill. It raises a problem that should not be there and should perhaps not have been made in the first place, because the Smith commission’s recommendation falls outside the commission’s terms of reference.
Clause 2 is a novel provision. There are precedents for transposing a convention of the constitution into statute, but once it is in statute the convention ceases to exist. The most recent example of this replaces the convention that a Government who lose a vote of confidence in the House of Commons either resign or request a Dissolution with Section 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The Act provides legal certainty. It was amended in your Lordships’ House to ensure that it did so.
Clause 2 does not transpose the Sewel convention into statute. It simply states the convention. The convention does not cease to exist. We thus have the convention and we have statute. The flexibility inherent in conventions is not displaced by the certainty of a statute. This creates uncertainty in a way that has not existed when conventions have given way to legal certainty before. Conventions are not enforceable in the courts. What we have here is a statutory provision. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, it is not immune from being challenged in the courts. It may never be challenged, but there is no immunity. Will my noble friend the Minister therefore explain why these provisions are in the Bill? How does he justify them, given the Government’s very clear guidance on the purpose of legislating?
The Constitution Committee’s report makes a compelling case for standing back and making sense of where we are. Some may see that as justifying the case for a constitutional convention, as we have heard. I do not. I fear that a convention may rush and produce skewed recommendations. I have argued for a different type of body—one that looks at how the changes we have undertaken, or are undertaking, fit together and how the basic principles underpinning our constitution are maintained. The more that Bills such as this come before us, the more the need for such a body becomes urgent. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the time has come for us to take stock of where we are, and, if not, why not?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and to agree with him that we have perhaps got to the end of piecemeal devolution. It is time to look at the devolved legislatures as a whole. Perhaps a Welsh voice may be heard in this, although I have to tell your Lordships that my three sons, Andrew, Gavin and Jamie, were all entitled to Scottish passports under the SNP proposals, although curiously my three grandchildren, Angus, Finley and Murray, were not.
Immediately before the Scottish Referendum, the no campaign ran scared. The vow set out in that hallowed constitutional document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the front page of the Daily Record, contained no pledge to maintain the Barnett formula. In the context of the SNP’s false complaint that the coalition Government intended to slash expenditure on the NHS, the vow was a pledge that the final say on how much was spent by the NHS in Scotland would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament—as, indeed, it already was. The words,
“because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue”,
were added. That is the only reference to the Barnett formula in the vow.
On 28 September, on the BBC’s “Sunday Politics”, the Prime Minister said that the Barnett formula would become “less relevant over time” as Scotland’s block grant from Westminster would be cut in proportion to the extra tax-raising powers being devolved. Of course, in the days that followed, before the referendum, Alex Salmond said that the vow was a last-minute offering of nothing. After the referendum, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, pointed out, he described it as a trick, a deception and the crucial factor in swinging more than 10% of the votes. This claim was later dismissed as rubbish by Gordon Wilson, the former leader of the SNP, who said that the vow had had “zilch” influence on the result. That conclusion was later backed by all the independent polling evidence.
According to Professor Tomkins of Glasgow University, in his evidence to the Economic Affairs Committee, the Smith commission, of which he was a member, took it as a given that the Barnett formula would survive the process,
“because it was in the Vow, and the Smith Commission was meeting and working in the shadow of the Vow”.
I think we are all in the shadow of the vow in this debate and that is very unfortunate. The Smith report simply said of the Barnett formula, in paragraph 95.1, that,
“the block grant from the UK Government to Scotland will continue to be determined via the operation of the Barnett Formula”.
That is all it said. Of course, it was signed up to by the leaders of the political parties, who no doubt did not give their minds to the implications of it all.
The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, last week promised to block the Scotland Bill at Holyrood by refusing to introduce a legislative consent motion unless the United Kingdom Treasury agrees a “satisfactory and fair” settlement to underpin the Bill. So, we have these protracted talks on the fiscal framework. Her decision as to what is satisfactory and fair no doubt requires the maintenance of the Barnett formula, because it provides 20% more funding for public spending per capita in Scotland than the UK average.
Let us look at Wales. The Wales Act 2014 permitted the partial devolution of income tax to Wales, subject to the endorsement of the people of Wales in a referendum. The First Minister, Mr Carwyn Jones, has refused to hold that referendum until there is a “fair funding settlement” for Wales. By that he means the abolition of the Barnett formula and the introduction of a block grant based on need. He has also complained that as the devolution of income tax on earnings in Scotland does not require a referendum, Wales should not have to put up with one.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, referred to the Select Committee on the Barnett formula, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which concluded that,
“the Barnett Formula should no longer be used to determine annual increases in the block grant for the United Kingdom’s devolved administrations”,
and:
“A new system which allocates resources to the devolved administrations based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs should be introduced”.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was a member of that committee and no doubt he signed up to that conclusion.
The need, therefore, for a constitutional convention to look at the constitutional arrangements for the devolved Administrations is essential. It has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Shipley, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others. There will be anomalies, particularly if a fiscal framework agreement for Scotland is based on the retention of the Barnett formula. Those anomalies may be overwhelming. Are we to have a different fiscal framework for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, would have it, for the north-east of England, should devolution ever come to those parts? Or are we to have a formula that makes sense wherever it is operated within the United Kingdom?
My late wife Nan came from the mining village of Fauldhouse in West Lothian—she had the answer to the question, as it happens. She would have called this a real stushie. But it can run and run. The Economic Affairs Committee has suggested a delay between Second Reading and Committee. I understand why but what it has failed to grasp is the political imperative of next May’s elections—elections that give the people of Wales and Scotland an opportunity to consider the record of their respective Governments and the outcomes of their policies. It is now to be turned into a wrangle over powers. It is very much in the interests of Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland to keep the pot boiling until those elections are over. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the no-detriment principle is simple: it means whatever you want it to mean. I am sure the Mad Hatter would have approved of that definition.
The target of the Welsh Government in 1999 was to raise the level of the economic indicator of gross value added per capita in Wales from 73% of the UK average to 90%. The latest figures show that the level has declined to 72.2%. We remain bottom of the league. As the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, pointed out in a passionate speech, the latest Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy finds that the education system, which was the pride of my mother-in-law, Dux of Bathgate Academy in her day, is in decline. Performance in reading dropped in primary schools between 2012 and 2014, and there is a dramatic decline in standards of numeracy. This is the Scottish education of which you were proud and the situation matches my feelings about the state of Welsh education. It is the records of these Governments that we should be attacking before the May elections, not which powers are being granted or what the fiscal framework should be.
The essential thing is that the Bill be subject to proper scrutiny in this House, but also that it be passed. If the SNP does not wish to exercise the powers this Bill presents to it on a plate, its demands for full fiscal autonomy will be hollow. The people of Scotland should not be diverted by wrangles over a fiscal framework, which is a smokescreen for the record of that Government, which fails Scotland as the Labour Government fails Wales.
Finally, I was delighted to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I hope we hear a lot more from her. I was completely impressed by the assertion of the value and the values of the United Kingdom by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. He calls for a new act of union and a federal United Kingdom. I have been asking for that since 1964.
Lord McCluskey (CB)
My Lords, I was privileged to be part of Lord Elwyn-Jones’s Front-Bench team in 1978 when this House fully debated every detail of the Government’s Scotland Bill that was enacted that year. In 1998, I took part in the debates on the Scotland Act 1998. I helped to persuade this House to reject the disgraceful legislative proposal that that Bill contained to allow the Scottish judges—senior judges—to be dismissed by a political vote in the new Assembly.
In 2012, having been invited by the then First Minister of Scotland to chair a group to consider problems that had arisen—at least in his mind—between the Supreme Court and the Scottish courts. I was able to play a significant role in this House in persuading that the reforms suggested by the group that I had led be enacted into law. That was done by way of amendments to the Scotland Act 2012, with the extremely valuable assistance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who was then serving as Advocate-General.
I refer to these matters because in each instance I had direct personal experience of the many valuable improvements that this House has made to devolution legislation over the years. It is because of the outstandingly valuable work done in this House in relation to these matters that I am saddened by the absence from the House of any Peers placed here to speak as official representatives of the SNP. In the other place SNP Members put down many amendments to the Bill and might even have voted for one or two of them. However, in the absence from this House of any Peers speaking officially for the SNP, it is difficult to have the fullest and most convincing debate possible on the SNP’s ideas—in Committee or otherwise.
That is a pity because the merits of the SNP’s proposed amendments and ideas—and, indeed, its whole approach —deserve the kind of critical analysis that this House uniquely makes. The legislative debates here are seldom dominated by political point-scoring. Regrettably, too many Bills coming from the other place contain numerous provisions—as indeed this one does—especially technical ones that have never been debated at all. This House, with all its faults, invariably debates the entire Bill and every single amendment. In 1978 there was no time limit on any speeches and we often sat until 1 am, but we got the business done. We also have a very large number of experts in every field who have no political axe to grind, whose best days are behind them but who have not left their experience or learning behind them. They are well qualified to contribute to a fuller understanding of how our democratic institutions work—or, indeed, fail to work. They are able to analyse, critically and free of political bias, the technical merits of the many new and untested proposals contained in this extraordinary Bill.
As your Lordships have said, the proposals in the Bill emerged in the past few months as a result of hasty compromises that have left many of the participants, and others, deeply unhappy. How much better informed would our consideration of the Bill be if we had the advice of some of the experienced members of the SNP to respond to the analysis and criticisms that are likely to emerge? How much more satisfactory would it be if the amendments put on paper in the other House by the SNP were able to be moved in this House by persons committed to them and convinced of their value, and then tested by the experience of your Lordships? I do not pretend to have any inside knowledge as to why the SNP appears to have set its face against having party representatives contributing as Members of this House but I think that it is a mistake. The absence from this House of SNP Peers lends weight to a frequently repeated charge against the SNP—that it does not respond to reasoned criticisms of its policies but seeks instead to divert attention from the criticisms by attacking the process that yielded them. Too often its response to reasoned criticism appears to be, “Ignore the message, just shoot the messenger”.
I also regret to say that I am seriously disappointed by the quality and the capacity of the Members of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s measures sufficiently. I do not know if that was always so but those are the fruits of my observation over the past few years. There is a widespread perception in Scotland that pre-legislative scrutiny by committees in the Scottish Parliament does not work well at all; in fact, it works badly. There is also a public sense that too few of the Members of that Parliament have the expertise properly to assess and criticise the measures that are put before it by the Scottish Government, especially those of a technical character.
Those weaknesses are seriously compounded by two features of the Scottish Parliament. The first is that the Opposition are electorally weak and, because of a lack of numbers and resources, do not provide the vigorous and informed critique that a unicameral legislature needs. The second is that the Scottish National Party exercises an iron discipline over its Members in the Scottish Parliament because, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has reminded us, the overriding imperative of the governing party is to promote the cause of independence. Within the Scottish Parliament no dissent from government initiatives is permitted. The facade of unwavering unity must be maintained.
For example, I and a number of others recently welcomed the U-turn by the Scottish Government when they abandoned their previous policy of scrapping the long-standing evidential rules governing the use of corroboration in Scots criminal cases. The SNP MSPs first voted unanimously for the legislation abolishing the old rules. But when the former First Minister retired, the unanimous condemnation of corroboration as a bad thing turned overnight into a unanimous acclamation that corroboration was, after all, a good thing. Why was that? Simply because the new First Minister said so. The unquestioning obedience to the central diktat on each occasion was disturbingly sheepish. Radio 4 told us the other day of the local butcher who died and the organist at his funeral played, ironically, “Sheep May Safely Graze”. I will take the matter no further.
Finally, I am concerned that the weak Scottish unicameral Parliament will have real difficulty in dealing with the new and untested powers contained in the 2012 Act and the present Bill. The devolved Government will exercise greatly enhanced powers of which they have little or no experience. The Scottish Parliament itself is not well equipped, as we have said. Additionally, as others have pointed out, there is no second Chamber to allow an informed examination and critique of the new machinery and procedures required. There is no constitutional culture of conventions, never mind this particular convention, to govern the exercise of those powers. I hope, for the good of Scotland, that the SNP will not—as usual—lightly dismiss the advice that this expert House is sure to offer.
I conclude by expressing my real fear that once the Bill is enacted and brought into operation, it is more likely to compound our constitutional problems than to solve them. I am not an enthusiast for this Bill.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
My Lords, I feel very humbled to take part in this great debate, not least after our two maiden speakers, who were excellent and regaled us with their Scottish credentials. I am not Scottish and have only a modest knowledge of Scottish politics. My reason for taking part is that I am a member of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, which for the past four months has been looking at the issue of the fiscal framework and financial devolution, something that professionally—I hope at least—I know something about. In that context, I would like to say, along with other members of that committee, how much we owe to the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who did an outstanding job of chairing the committee. His speech today, while in parts quite technical, nevertheless was a very fair assessment of an all-party agreement on the way forward.
I have three concerns with the Bill but I will preface my remarks by saying that I wholly support the objective of the Bill; namely, to extend devolution in Scotland and, in time, maximum devolution to Scotland, in a way that I hope will become a template for maximum devolution in Wales and Northern Ireland, with its implications for England.
My first concern—this has been said before but it has to be said again because it is so important—is about our ignorance of the fiscal framework. For some people, the fiscal and financial aspects of the Bill may seem simply technical details best left to economists and Treasury officials to work out together. That would be a great mistake, because hidden in the fiscal and financial details—what taxes you devolve, how you adjust the block grant, exactly what the terms are on which you can raise debt—are political time bombs which, if detonated, will have disastrous implications for the UK. We chose A Fracturing Union? as our title, and I believe that these issues will ultimately lead to the break-up of the UK if they are not dealt with.
The reason for that is that a new fiscal settlement for Scotland will, after a few years, directly affect the living standards of Scottish people, not least in health and education. It will also affect the living standards of people in Wales, in Northern Ireland and in England. More than that, the terms of fiscal devolution between Scotland and the rest of the UK will almost certainly become a template for devolution in other countries. Therefore, after a few years, if electorates in the various countries which make up the United Kingdom decide that because of the terms of this settlement their standard of living has worsened, either absolutely or relatively, they will almost certainly feel a sense of grievance and betrayal. I believe it would be very difficult to rebuke in any way the Scottish people for saying that the only way forward would be independence. That is not just my personal view. Our committee, having taken evidence from academics, economists, constitutional experts, businesspeople, accountants and politicians, came to a unanimous conclusion. Because of this, until Parliament knows the details of the fiscal settlement and the financial devolution, we should really not proceed to pass the Bill. Publication of the details, with full transparency, is essential.
My second concern is that the Bill does not start with a clean sheet of paper. We have the referendum result, the vow and the commitments of the main political parties, all of which, crucially, have raised the expectations of the Scottish electorate about the Bill and further devolution. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Reid, hit the nail on the head when he said that we are between a rock and a hard place. However, we have to start from where we are. The Barnett formula, which has been mentioned already this afternoon, attempts to do something very difficult: to reallocate resources between countries and individuals who are in real need. It has its advantages—which we should not neglect—in terms of simplicity, stability and a lack of ring-fencing but, as has been mentioned, after 37 years, it really needs to be modernised. The failure of the Barnett formula is seen, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will agree, in the fact that because the allocation in Wales is so unfair, the Government—as we shall see tomorrow in the Statement by the Chancellor —has had to put a floor under it. The Barnett formula has not delivered what is necessary.
The Barnett formula is not, in our judgment, and certainly in my opinion, a solid basis for a sustainable, long-term settlement for adjusting the block grant to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Because of the commitments that have been made, we have to start with the Barnett formula. But while starting with it, is it not possible, when the fiscal statement comes out, to make a commitment to carry on and say that we need to change it during this Parliament to take account of the things it should if it is to be considered and widely accepted as fair?
My third concern is that the fiscal and financial framework should not create expectations which cannot be delivered. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has mentioned many times this afternoon the no-detriment principle. To take the example of borrowing in the capital markets, which has been mentioned, Scotland will clearly benefit if it is able to access the capital markets in its own right, particularly for long-term investment. But what if Scotland is unable to repay interest on its bonds or even to repay its debt at all? In that case, Scotland, as other noble Lords have said, must face up to the consequences of its actions. However, including an explicit no-bailout clause in the Bill would be provocative to the people of Scotland and contrary to the spirit of devolution. More than that, it is inconceivable that the capital markets would ever believe it. However, this means strict limits to the amount that Scotland is able to borrow and limits placed on the ratio of Scotland’s national debt to national income. The Bill therefore has to make it very clear, through the fiscal arrangements, exactly what the potential for borrowing is.
In conclusion, we need an explicit and detailed fiscal framework. We start with the Barnett formula, but it must be amended during this Parliament. We also need rules for borrowing and debt to be set out clearly. All of these are within our reach. I have great confidence in the Minister, having had the privilege of being a colleague of his for some years during the second half of the 1980s in the policy unit in 10 Downing Street. The noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, is a person of great ability and integrity and all I ask for is greater openness, greater clarity and greater transparency. As a result, this Bill, when scrutinised, will be workable and ensure a United Kingdom, not a divided one, which I feel is what all Members of your Lordships’ House would wish.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome in particular three speeches: first are the two maiden speeches this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering; the third is the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin. In a debate on the Smith report, it is vital that one of the key issues to consider is whether the Bill meets in full what the report—adopted by all five parties—called for. It was vital that we heard directly from him that it does. I congratulate him on a very fine speech and it was very nice to see him back in the Chamber. I will also say that the three former Secretaries of State for Scotland did not do badly this afternoon, either; all of them made very good speeches.
We are where we are. The vow, the panic of the three party leaders, was frankly ludicrous but we are where we are. I judge this Bill partly by how far it meets the recommendations of the Smith commission but also by how far it genuinely delivers accountability. When you get into accountability, it is impossible to decide whether the Bill is good, bad or indifferent until we have the full fiscal framework. That does not mean delaying the Bill; it may mean asking the people who are examining this to maybe work a wee bit harder. Meetings once a month is frankly rather leisurely. What is wrong with once a week? Why can we not get them moving on this? It is impossible to reach a decision and the SNP are quite right. It is a disgrace that the Bill left the House of Commons without this ever being debated. I said to one of the SNP MPs the other day, “You guys should surely have made sure that this was fair to Scotland before you passed it,” and he said, “We’re leaving it to the Scottish Parliament to do that for us.”
That is fine for the SNP but it is not actually fine for either the Conservatives or the Labour Party to have allowed it through without scrutinising it properly. I hope that we will have that scrutiny here.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Does the noble Lord think it is conceivable that it might have dawned on the SNP that in moving from a block grant, which is 20% more per head of population than the rest of the UK, towards a point where a large part of that is substituted by a tax-raising power where the tax base is not 20% higher, there is going to be a gap? Does he think that they are deliberately not reaching agreement because they do not want to face an election telling the Scottish people that there will be less money?
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
If the noble Lord waits until the end of my speech he will find that on this, as on so many other things, we are totally of one mind. The problem is that we had a very narrow escape last year. The fall in the oil price is not the fault of the SNP but had the vote gone 10% the other way we would have been landed in a situation where Scotland would be heading for bankruptcy very quickly. We lost our independence through bankruptcy way back in 1707 and the Darien scheme and we could well have been returned to it. It is vital that we put a cost on things.
Everyone has concentrated on the no vote and whether the vow mattered. I am rather more interested in the 45% of my fellow countrymen who voted for independence on a false prospectus because this document—the White Paper—which I imagine every Scot read cover to cover before using it as a very convenient doorstop, predicated oil revenues in 2016-17 of £6.8 billion. The oil revenues are of course a lot smaller. They then sneaked out a document without any ministerial statement, published in Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin two hours before the Parliament closed for the summer recess, predicating oil revenues of £0.6 billion in 2016-17. That is a hole of very nearly £6 billion and compared to the proportionate effect of anything that George Osborne has in mind in welfare, it is six times worse than anything George Osborne is thinking about. We are heading for super austerity in Scotland if we are going to balance the books. It amazes me that my fellow countrymen are not constantly quizzing the SNP saying, “What taxes are you going to raise or what services are you going to cut to bring the books into balance?” They need not exactly balance—I fully accept that you can borrow—but you cannot go on borrowing for ever and ever.
It is very important that we put price tags on things, and there is a price tag I invite the Minister to consider. There was an amendment in the House of Commons asking for the Government to appoint a body, including representatives nominated by the Scottish Parliament, to estimate the effect of full fiscal autonomy. I think it should be possible to do that. It was voted against by the Government on the premise—mistaken, in my view—that we have done the sums already and we all know that. The trouble is that the Scottish people do not believe you. It is a tragedy and it is very unfair but I am afraid it is true. We need something that people believe in. The SNP rejected it because they did not think that anything appointed by the Conservative Government would be impartial because they are against full fiscal autonomy.
Now I am fairly certain that full fiscal autonomy is a disaster and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I think the SNP feel it is a disaster as well but do you think they are going to admit it is a disaster? If full fiscal autonomy is a disaster then full independence, which goes one step further, is even worse. The SNP is unlikely to do that. It is more likely to pick holes in the way that the sums were calculated. That is why the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, is so important and that it is so important that we debate it.
Reference has been made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord McCluskey, to the absence of the SNP. It is not our fault that it is not here: it has been given ample opportunity to have representatives here. It is very important that we hear the SNP viewpoint on what methodology is used to calculate the reduction in the block grant. I am quite prepared to take representations from the SNP and put them forward as amendments on the block grant here, if only to give them an airing. However, who knows? I might even agree with them. Nobody knows, because we do not know what the block grant reduction system will look like. It is very important that we get adequate information on that.
Likewise, we must make sure what the fiscal framework actually means. It is very complicated, and I entirely respect and do not mock the idea of it being negotiated behind closed doors. That is perfectly sensible. I think that we will have to wait for a complete package before either party wants to admit what they are negotiating on, because there will be trade-offs and compromises. I do not regard compromise as a dirty word in politics; it is what politics is all about. I am quite happy to wait until the conclusion of the process, but the parties must be told that there is no deal without the process being complete. Why should it be singularly the Scottish Parliament which can reject this purely on the grounds of the fiscal framework being wrong?
There was an interesting article last week, just before the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, reported, from Anton Muscatelli, the principal of Glasgow University. He said that, depending on which system is chosen, there could be a disastrous effect on the block grant. That was echoed by the committee in its report. To be honest, my concern is that whatever system is chosen, there will be a bad deal for Scotland, because the economics of independence, or of much more devolution, do not work. It is better to have a system where we spread risk throughout the entire United Kingdom.
I fully accept that the Scottish Parliament is elected; I am not. If its Members choose to go for that deal, that is entirely up to them and I will respect that decision—I will not leave Scotland as a result, or anything like that—but they must tell the Scottish people first. It is all very well accepting a bad deal if you think you will feel better about it because you are independent and doing it yourself. That is fine—I fully respect that—but to deceive the Scottish people would be totally wrong. So there is quite a lot we could go for here, but it is very important that we nail in advance any suggestion that the Treasury is choosing unfavourable methods of calculation—otherwise, the SNP will blame that for the breakdown of negotiations.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the arrival of the Bill in this House. I also welcome the arrival of my neighbour here, my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whom I congratulate on her very excellent speech. As somebody who served in a Scottish regiment, I was particularly struck, in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, by what he said about the referendum campaign: we are better together and safer together. The noble Lord brought a very important point to bear in his maiden speech, and I hope to hear from him many times more.
I was also pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, who fully approves the Bill as presently constituted. As he said, if the powers are used wisely, it will be of great benefit to everyone in Scotland. I support the Bill because I believe that taxation must go hand in hand with representation if a Parliament or Assembly is to have any democratic legitimacy, although I must say that devolving 100% of income tax is a very big step indeed.
I congratulate the committee which published this splendid report last week, and particularly draw attention to the paragraph on borrowing powers, which makes it very clear:
“We recommend that the UK and Scottish Governments agree simple and clear rules for borrowing including”—
most importantly—
“a ceiling on Scottish Government debt”.
I turn to scrutiny, because this is one area where the Scottish Parliament has not shown much progress up to now. I want an assurance from the Minister that the arrangements agreed for the operation of the Scottish Fiscal Commission will make it sufficiently independent to ensure that forecasts about the financial state of the Scottish scene are accurate. The way that the OBR has been put in place and is now working should be the model for the Scottish equivalent. Is the Minister confident that his Scottish counterparts will indeed appoint independently-minded members to that body who will have the statutory backing to speak out on a regular basis? In order to promote harmony within the UK, would it not be appropriate to suggest that one member of the OBR also be a member of the Scottish Fiscal Commission—or, better still, a joint OBR-SFC committee for endorsing forecasts?
Having looked at some of the forecasts made by Members of the Scottish Government on oil prices, particularly Alex Salmond at the time of the referendum, I am afraid that I do not believe much of what I hear from them: certainly, when Alex Salmond talked about $112 a barrel, it was nonsense when today we see it standing at $45 a barrel. As we go forward, we must be assured that these sorts of forecasts are a thing of the past and not the future.
Can the Minister tell us when we are likely to see the results of these financial matters, as many people have asked, and whether they will come to this House, as they certainly ought to do, before this Bill receives Royal Assent? Agreement on these matters is essential if this huge transfer of power is to succeed.
I should add—and I believe that it was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in an article—that Holyrood would do much better to have a serious look at the way Select Committees operate in Westminster. It is quite clear that the way scrutiny is carried out in the Scottish Parliament is not up to standard and must be improved if those of us who live in Scotland are going to believe anything they say.
Due to my past involvement with the Highlands and Islands, I am interested to note that paragraph 33 of the Smith commission report, says that the Crown Estate assets,
“will be further devolved to local authority areas such as Orkney, Shetland”,
and the Western Isles. I know how much importance is attached to this part of the Bill by those people who live in that area. Given the tendency of the Scottish Government to centralise—and we have seen that with the police forces in Scotland—can the Minister give us any indication of how the Smith commission’s request is to be put into practice? It is, I imagine, a red line, as they say, for those who live in the Highlands and Islands.
I have one other thing to say about the Crown Estates: it is a very successful and well-run property company. It has many joint-venture partnerships with sovereign funds and others. You only have to walk up Regent Street to see how much they own there. Joint ventures are essential to the continued success of that company. I would not wish to see the confidence of their global partners upset in any way by the terms of this devolution Bill, as there are partnerships whose interests straddle the border.
I have no time to speak about the energy measures in the Bill; that will have to wait for Committee. I look forward to the passing of this Bill and to seeing the terms of the first Scottish Budget, but we must see the terms of the fiscal framework before a green light can shine for this Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, not only due to his very strong Borders links, to which I have great affinity, but since he raised some of the aspects that I will try to pick up in my own contribution in the wee small hours of this long debate.
Before I start, I, too, wish to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on her maiden speech, and to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. So successful was his maiden speech that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, even named me after my noble friend’s adopted area of Pittenweem when he referred to me. My noble friend Lord Campbell’s work as chairman of my own party’s commission, following in the footsteps of the Steel commission, is relevant to this debate. There is obviously something about the Lib Dems that we have the great benefit of our former leaders to chair constitutional committees—noble Lords may draw their own conclusions about that for their own parties—and his work established the fundamentals of our approach to this Bill.
In the last two decades, in the two referendums there have been in Scotland, the people have spoken very clearly. They want a Scottish Parliament and they want it to operate within the United Kingdom. That beguilingly simple opinion is complicated by the fact that, since the Act of Union, we have lived in a unitary state. Furthermore, the Treasury has developed really quite enormous centralised power over the decades. Also, when we developed the welfare state in the 20th century, it was by and large geographically blind for understandable reasons.
Creating a system of governance that changes the core elements of this unitary state has not been easy, and I for one never thought it would be. The consequences of trying to balance choice and affordability in Scotland with a different profile of economy in other areas, as well as changing the British state, has not been straightforward. It proved to be complex both politically and practically. In many respects, it will continue to be so, but that should not necessarily cause any great surprise to us. Securing consensus has sometimes been very difficult and often led to a lowest common denominator for constitutional reform. However, gladly, it has not presented a block to change.
We have debated many aspects of reform but all without the wider narrative as to the future of the union overall. Change has, therefore, proven to be what was expedient for political agreement rather than set within a wider settlement. The establishment of the legislature in 1999 without commensurate fiscal power or a fully formed Government was a clear example of that. We still see remnants of an outdated concept of Westminster parliamentary sovereignty, which we have heard referred to in this debate, rooted in an imperious parliamentarist view rather than the more compelling concept of citizenship sovereignty that we now have across our lands.
In this regard, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, deserves considerable commendation. He is remarkably modest, given his achievement in finally bringing about what can be the fundamentals of a home rule settlement, where we bring fiscal power commensurate with legislative power, and start to establish that we will need much greater transparency in intergovernmental relations and also that Governments must work together across both devolved and reserved interests. That is finally establishing some of the principles on which the future generations of our governance must be based.
I was grateful to the Minister for referencing in his opening remarks the devo-plus reports that I authored after I served in the Scottish Parliament, for five years of which I was a member of the Finance Committee there. I think that we will finally see the functions of a tax and welfare system in Scotland, but this will also bring about difficulties because it will not be easy. It will also add pressure on my former institution in Holyrood. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and others said, the current way that the Scottish Parliament operates will need to change. Again, that should cause no surprise. I believe it is positive.
There has been much concern about the lack of publication of the fiscal framework. By and large, I share that concern. At the very least, it would have been helpful for the Government to have published the statement of principles, especially on this now famous or notorious concept of no detriment. That would have been helpful and would have framed the debate much better. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness outlined very clearly the principles underpinning why such a concept exists, but greater clarity would have been more helpful. Again, it would be helpful to know whether the fiscal framework is simply another iteration of the Statement of Funding Policy. There have been six versions of that since 1999 —that is how the devolved areas are funded—and it would be helpful to know whether the framework is based on that.
Finally, there has also been comment on the need for a wider consideration of a narrative of the union going forward. I passionately believe that that is necessary, and I brought forward a Bill to your Lordships’ House to try to help to bring about space in which we can debate that, in a Constitutional Convention Bill. That would be citizen led and try to establish some of the fundamental principles, as well as establishing a narrative. I have talked about the need for a statement of the new union, and others have called for a new Act of Union, but the common thread is that this Scotland Bill deserves to be passed—we need it on the statute book; it corrects many of the areas where we have been piecemeal in the past. However, without such a binding statement, a core element, on why this union of these nations exist, I think that we will still struggle. Once this Bill passes, as I hope that it will, we should give our absolute focus to bring about either a new Act or new statement for the generations to come.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, to this House. Their arrival could not have been better timed.
As a member of the Economic Affairs Committee, ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, I naturally endorse the criticisms that he made of the process for scrutinising the Bill. The Bill is full of holes; for example, Part 2 lists the taxes to be devolved or assigned but tells us nothing about how they will interact with other parts of the settlement—for example, the highly complex but vital indexation mechanism for uprating revenues and for calculating the abatement of a block grant. That sounds a mouthful and it is very complicated, but I predict that it will be the single most powerful mechanism in this new settlement. We will have to find some way in which to understand it.
The Bill also tells us nothing about the borrowing and debt regime. The UK Government have an objective to eliminate the budget deficit by the end of this Parliament. In a country with a single currency, exchange rate and monetary policy and a unified public debt market, the fiscal policy of the devolved Administrations must be consistent with the national policy. The argument that Scotland should be free to set its own borrowing, subject to a no-bailout rule if it gets it wrong, is simply not plausible. There must be clear statutory limits to debt. So this Bill is like buying an Ikea flat-pack with no instructions on how the pieces fit together, or a mobile phone with no operating manual.
I therefore welcome the Minister’s assurances, as far as they go, that it is the Government’s firm intention that the fiscal framework should be made available to Parliament before the passage of the Bill is completed. But that does not tell us what happens if negotiations drag on. In my view, the Bill is of such importance that its proper scrutiny should not be sacrificed to the timetable. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, I think that the answer is not to delay the Bill but to start work right now on accelerating work on the framework.
This is a very important Bill, which seeks a major advance in the degree of devolution in Scotland, taking it from a very low level by international standards to among the highest in the world. The settlement transfers responsibility for revenues approaching £16 billion and should give Scotland the incentive to develop its revenues and spend them wisely, rather than simply moaning about the inadequacy of the block grant. It is also trying to establish a settlement that lasts. The Smith commission used the word “durable”, while the White Paper seeks an “enduring settlement” and the Bill uses the term “permanent”. The success of the Bill is important for the union but if the settlement is poorly designed and collapses in confusion and acrimony, the union will be put in peril.
As well as serious flaws in process, the Economic Affairs Committee has highlighted a number of concerns of substance. A key feature of the proposal is the retention of the Barnett formula by assertion rather than detailed justification. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for pointing out the rather oblique way in which the Barnett formula appears as obiter dicta in a Statement which appears to be about health funding. Does the Smith commission really believe that every jot and tittle—every parameter—of the Barnett formula should be immutable for all time? By adopting the stance of “What we have, we hold”, Scotland seems to think so.
The defects in the Barnett formula are well known to this House. It was thoroughly reviewed by a Select Committee in 2009, and its report set out some principles for a new system: it should consider both the baseline and any increment to funding; it should be fair, and be seen to be fair; and it should take account of relative need. None of these conditions is being satisfied. The current allocations are grossly and, as they might say in Wales, grotesquely unfair. Scotland has a gross value added—that is what we used to call GDP—per head 29% higher than that of Wales. That is a significant gap in its prosperity. It has the highest GVA per head of any region of the UK after London and the south-east, and identifiable spending per head 4.5% higher than Wales.
There is nothing in the Barnett formula which has regard to the baseline and nothing to promote any convergence towards a fairer reference point. A settlement whose starting point is so unfair cannot prove to be durable, permanent or enduring. It will embed a festering grievance which will lead to the breakdown of the settlement and, in this way, imperil the union. An enduring settlement will, over time, have to adopt needs funding as its reference point, even if it takes many years to get there. Some witnesses argued that calculation of needs would be too complex, even though, ironically, need is one of the factors by which the devolved Administrations divide up the direct grant once they have it.
I have two further observations to make. First, the House of Commons has just amended its procedure to provide for English votes for English laws. Study of the finances of the devolved Administrations, even after the changes now proposed, tells us that their finances and those of the national Government are closely intertwined. The pure English law which has no consequences for tax or spending beyond England will turn out to be a rare beast indeed. Secondly, the work of the Economic Affairs Committee has demonstrated that there is little transparency in the current arrangements and a poor public understanding of them. We need mechanisms and organisations—maybe the OBR or something like it—not to make decisions, as in the Australian grants commission, but to keep the numbers honest and document the methodology.
I include one final point on this famous second no detriment. Let us suppose that health spending in England increases by 4% this year and the Government plan to increase it by 3% next year. Is that a 3% increase —or is it a 1% cut, which has to be compensated for? I do not think you would get agreement on that and if you cannot get agreement on something so simple, I do not see how you can make this thing work. We are therefore drifting into dangerous waters. We should heed the warnings of the Constitution Committee about piecemeal change, inadequately scrutinised by Parliament.
The Marquess of Lothian (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. It will certainly deserve re-reading tomorrow to get its full impact and I shall certainly be doing so.
My family’s Latin motto is “Sero sed serio” which, translated into English, means “Late but in earnest”. That is fairly appropriate for my position in this debate. This does, however, have its disadvantages because I had written a speech for this occasion before I knew the running order. During the course of the debate, every line of my speech has been delivered in one part or other of the House, so I am going to restrict myself to a number of observations. Before I do, I should like to congratulate the two maiden speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, is an old colleague of mine at the Bar in Scotland and served with me for a long time in the other place. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering made another very fine maiden speech. She was also at the Bar in Scotland, as I was, and also served with me in another place. We had two excellent maiden speeches. I look forward to hearing much more from them.
It has been 17 years since I last spoke on devolution at all, let alone in a devolution debate—I will explain why a little later—so coming to this debate has been rather nostalgic. There are the same faces and quite a lot of the same points are being made all over again. One of the things I enjoyed most, which was fairly novel in these debates, was listening to my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, fulminating against the success of the nationalists over the years since devolution was introduced. I wonder whether at some stage he might apologise for the enthusiasm with which he embraced the concept that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, but—Oh! Perhaps I will get that apology.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
It was another George, my noble friend Lord Robertson, who used that particular phrase. I am sure he will explain that away himself. I have gone as near as I can—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, recognised this earlier on—in recanting some of the things I said when I was a bit younger.
The Marquess of Lothian
I think I will have to take that as being as near to an apology as I will get from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Foulkes for recanting, as he should on a number of issues. This is the third time that the accusation that somehow devolution would not deter or kill nationalism, which in its ultimate expression is separation, has been mentioned. Will the noble Marquess reflect on what might have happened in the recent referendum had we not had devolution? We would now be a broken union because I have no doubt at all that if the aspirations of the Scottish nation to have more control over its own affairs had been denied for generations over this century and the previous century, we would not have had the result we had, which was to retain the United Kingdom but with devolution inside it. I ask him to reflect on that before he repeats what is becoming a cliché throughout the House.
The Marquess of Lothian
I am very happy to reflect on it, but I make the point that had we not had devolution, I doubt whether we would have had the referendum because the basis for having the referendum would not have been there. A little later in my remarks I will deal rather more fully with what the noble Lord has just said.
Another thing that has interested me about this debate is how unpartisan it has been. In different parts of the House, people have taken the same view, but differing from that in other parts of the House. That is a very interesting factor in this debate. This is not a party issue. The Committee will therefore be of great interest.
I shall pick up one or two points that were made. First, we have heard a lot about the fiscal framework. I look forward to seeing it in due course. However, if we do not have it as part of our deliberations, our scrutiny in this House is false scrutiny because it is not based on the full facts and realisation of what the full impact will be. My noble friend Lord Forsyth described it as a second-hand car with we know not what under the bonnet in terms of the engine. I think it is more dangerous than that; we are about to launch an aeroplane without knowing whether it has landing gear and, if it has, whether it will work when the plane lands. That is a very serious consideration. I hope that even at this late stage the Government, through my noble friend the Minister, will try to find some way of ensuring that we can, as part of our scrutiny, look at the implications of the fiscal framework.
My second point is about permanence. I remember that many years ago when I was a law student in Edinburgh I was told that the Act of Union, which contained the phrase “that Scotland and England would ever after be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain”, could never be changed. I seem to remember “perpetuity” being mentioned. Yet the very holding of the referendum last year showed how false a position that was because, had the result gone the other way, that perpetuity would have been destroyed. I rather think that the permanence we are looking at in terms of Clause 1 will suffer the same end, and I look forward to hearing the arguments in Committee about whether there is some other way to give satisfaction and confidence, which I understand from the Minister is what we are trying to achieve. I mention in passing that doing so might be helpful to give satisfaction and confidence to the other side of the argument, too. If we are to have a ratchet to say that we can never go back from where we are, we ought to have a ratchet to say, “Thus far and no further”. That might give many of us a lot of reassurance on devolution.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Reid, my reason for not having spoken on this for 17 years is that at the end of the process of taking the Scotland Bill through the other place, where I led for the Opposition, I described it as the beginning of the slippery slope to separation. I was answered with accusations of scaremongering; that this was never going to happen; that devolution would hold. I do not think that the phrase “Thus far and no further” was ever mentioned, but that was the impression I had. That was what we would give the Scots in terms of devolution and that would be that. We are now on the third Bill: the slippery slope is continuing and, if we are not very careful with this Bill, it will go on even further.
I stopped talking about devolution because I recognised that the line I had taken had been defeated and I had to live with that. I did not want to be part of the slippery slope argument. The only reason I come back to it now is that, when we held the referendum last year and I thought the staying together side would win it, I rather foolishly thought that might be the end of the slippery slope. However, it was not, because in the last few days the vow was given, in unnecessary panic, and the results of that are now before this House. I am absolutely convinced that this is going to give encouragement to the nationalists in Scotland to push further and further.
This brings me to another point about the fiscal framework. My noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned, quite rightly, that he was suspicious about how keen the nationalists would be to see this completed in time for the parliamentary elections in Scotland. If I was them, I would not want to see it. If I am a nationalist I do not want stability when we get to those elections: I want instability. If I was a nationalist I would be saying, “Let us do everything we can to stop the framework being achieved”. The Government are in danger of falling into that trap unless we find another way out of it.
My view is very simplistic and has been from the start. The nationalists are the Danes. In the words of Kipling: when you start paying the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane. Over the years since devolution came along, we have always been paying the Danegeld; they always come back for more and will continue to do so. We have to think very seriously about that when considering the Bill. I end by saying something that I never thought I would say. Over these years, we have created great instability within the United Kingdom. I am a keen supporter of the United Kingdom—an arch unionist. I never thought I would be looking at anything to replace the United Kingdom that I was brought up with. However, I accept what I have heard from a number of noble Lords today, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. The time has come when we have to look seriously at how we create another Act of Union. It might be by convention or by all sorts of different ways, but we cannot go on relying on an Act of Union that has been so destabilised. We need to find something and if that is federalism, which I have opposed all my life, so be it. I would prefer that to the alternative of a further slippery slope and eventual separation.
Lord Stephen (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very good debate. Although there were parts of the last speech that I did not agree with, I very much agree with the final words of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. The name Michael Ancram kept coming into my mind—my apologies to him. There have been outstanding maiden speeches from two members of the Faculty of Advocates. As a mere solicitor in Scotland, I feel truly humbled by there having been eight contributors from the Faculty of Advocates, so far, with one still to come. This is a pretty fair contribution from the faculty. I think there are probably too many advocates going into politics these days and we need a few more solicitors, perhaps. However, I have very much enjoyed participating in a debate in which there have been these maiden speeches.
I enjoyed hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about her family background in Edinburgh and her time in Brussels and Westminster. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, mentioned, it has been a privilege to be involved in the debate. Unlike him, I have been listening to Menzies Campbell’s contributions and speeches for a mere 35 years or so, seeing him first as a very young candidate, then as a new MP, then as a very highly regarded expert on foreign affairs, then as my party leader, and now, in this Chamber, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem.
I start my attention to the Bill with the words of the Minister and give the Minister my strong support. He gave a very good, fair and wise opening speech in the face of, at times, a flurry of challenges on detriment and fiscal frameworks. It could, at times, have been easy to forget that the Bill has very strong all-party support, not only here but in the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament. We must not forget that. I still have to pinch myself that this all-party support includes the Conservatives. Indeed, it is now being led by the Minister and the Conservatives. It is quite a sight to see a Conservative Minister in the party of the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Lamont, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, speaking eloquently of creating one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. This remarkable change owes a great deal to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Conservative commission he chaired in preparing his party’s submission to the Smith commission, and indeed to the role of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, for which we should give him great credit.
The whole of the United Kingdom has become far too centralised and needs more than piecemeal or partial reform. I respectfully, sincerely and, perhaps, hopefully encourage the Minister and his colleagues in government to go one step further. This would lead very naturally and logically to a constitutional convention for the whole of the United Kingdom to start the process of creating a more modern, effective and stable democracy, not only for Scotland but for Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England. In such a convention, the Liberal Democrats would argue for a federal solution and—who knows?—looking around the Chamber, there might just be a few noble Lords who would wish to join us in that process.
Returning to the Bill, this is important, substantial legislation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, mentioned, short of war and peace, for a Parliament it does not get much more important than this. Of course, it all comes tumbling out of the referendum and out of the vow. The vow has been spoken about a great deal. The answer on the vow is simple: it was made and, having been made, it has to be delivered. I ask people not to look back and squabble or speculate on what might have been. Together we will, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, has again confirmed today, deliver on the promise by passing this Bill. We owe the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and all the members of his commission for producing and unanimously agreeing such a far-reaching set of proposals to such a tight timetable. This brings me to the fiscal framework. We are all agreed, I believe, on this issue as well. We need to see it and need it pretty much now. Delay or dragging of feet could fracture a delicate consensus. Let us get it agreed and get it published. Delay in progressing the Bill, however well intentioned, would simply play into the hands of the SNP.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I understand what the noble Lord is saying about delivering the Bill but if, when he sees the fiscal framework, it shows that Scotland will be financially worse off by a considerable degree, will he still be of the view that we have to get on with this and deliver it?
Lord Stephen
I very much take the view that, if that were the case, it would fracture the delicate political consensus that I have been speaking about. Therefore, I think it is up to the Minister and the Scottish Government to give everyone—the five parties of the Smith commission—confidence that we are on the right track in relation to the fiscal framework. If it cannot yet be published in full, why not look at other opportunities to publish an outline of the framework as agreed—the minutes of the meetings that have been discussing the framework have been spoken about—or a draft of the framework as it stands at this stage? Let us not hide it all. Let us get it out there in the open, and let us challenge the Scottish Government as well as the Government at United Kingdom level to open up on this issue and not have the discussions quite as much behind closed doors as currently appears to be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, emphasised that he was very much a Cross-Bencher and played no part in the policy as agreed by his commission. I am sure he was very modest in that regard. However, he mentioned two vital points in relation to all this. The first is that decentralisation to Scotland should not mean centralisation to one Government in Edinburgh. There should be decentralisation right across Scotland, and the mistakes of Police Scotland are a major warning to us all.
The second point is that all this should be about the good government of Scotland, which means parties and Governments working together and co-operating for the good of the people of Scotland. We would do well to bear that in mind over the next few weeks, not only as the Bill progresses through this place but in Scotland as well.
I turn to the main clauses of the Bill. On the constitutional changes, why not have a reformed, more modern constitution? Why not enshrine in legislation certain matters of great importance, such as the permanence of the Scottish Parliament? Why not have special majorities on other issues of great constitutional importance? Other countries do it. Our constitution can develop, change and be adapted to the needs of the 21st century. Why not also ask the Government to specify in the Bill before us today the current legislative consent rules rather than those defined back in 1998 before the Scottish Parliament was even created? It would be very interesting to hear the Minister’s response to the comments made in that regard by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness.
The Liberal Democrats support the full tax-raising powers now found in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Steel highlighted, a Parliament with such limited tax-raising powers as was the case with the Scottish Parliament back in its early years lacked accountability and responsibility from the start. It is no secret that the Liberal Democrats on the Smith commission, building on the work of the Liberal Democrat Campbell commission, supported bolder powers on welfare. We now see some of those powers coming forward, but I know that my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope will lead the Liberal Democrats’ charge on this issue with appropriate amendments in Committee—in a very responsible way, of course.
I want to pick up on the thanks expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, to those who helped save the day in the referendum. Many in this Chamber deserve thanks as well, including the noble Lord, Lord Reid, himself, and so very definitely do Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. But I hope also that the name of Charles Kennedy is remembered, as he gave a huge amount to the cause of home rule and federalism, and to speaking out strongly against the cause of nationalism.
Finally, I turn to the aid of the Minister and offer support. In echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I shall try to help him out on the issue of detriment with the actual quote from Through the Looking-Glass:
“‘When I use a word’, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less’. ‘The question is’, said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things’. ‘The question is’, said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be the master—that’s all’”.
So over to the Minister and to the next advocate in the debate.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab)
My Lords, I add, if I may, to the many congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It is a joy to see two members of faculty joining this august body. The welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, was perhaps less warm, identifying as he did the difference between members of the Faculty of Advocates and the solicitor branch. However, I assure noble Lords that the ratio of nine members of the faculty to one Scottish solicitor does not always happen in debate.
As ever when one is dealing with legislation to do with Scottish devolution, there has been a lively, lengthy and informed debate. As ever, many questions have arisen to which the answers from Her Majesty’s Government are eagerly awaited. Some of these issues, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, observed, are not entirely novel, so perhaps the answers have already been prepared.
One wonders whether the progenitors of the Scotland Act 1998 ever foresaw that their work would require to be revisited quite so often and quite so extensively. Be that as it may, the Scotland Bill, implementing as it does the recommendations of the Smith commission, is a remarkable piece of legislation. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, deserves considerable gratitude from both the UK and Scottish Parliaments for the work he has carried out in bringing about this remarkable piece of work. Reflecting as it does the work of five political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament, as well as the very many other contributors, the Smith commission makes for a substantial constitutional contribution.
As my noble friend Lord McAvoy has pointed out, this side of the House has obtained a number of amendments by concession from the Government to bring the Bill into line with the Smith commission recommendations.
I will try to cover some of the many significant points that noble Lords have raised today. I start, if I may, with Clause 1—always a good place to start in a Bill—and the question of permanency of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, drew this very swiftly into the area of federalism, as Liberal Democrats sometimes do. I was not sure whether he saw the permanency provision as one that was a bar to federalism or one that maybe encouraged a referendum on federalism to take place in due course. Be that as it may, he identified an important question for the Minister to answer: the question of whether the legislative consent Motion has two categories and how these are to be dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, raised fundamental issues in looking at this clause, going to the very root of the sovereignty of Parliament. These are very deep waters. Perhaps this may not be the right time at which to examine these points, but they certainly make the constitutional position of the UK, which is sometimes lost sight of, very much an issue to be looked at in the context of this Bill.
As the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, observed just a few moments ago, it does rather seem as though permanence is not for ever. Be that again as it may, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, echoed that the issue of sovereignty is an important point. That was picked up on by, I believe, his noble devil, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He further developed the concern that this question might result in these issues having to be determined in a court, and that might make matters even livelier than people perhaps have considered thus far.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who styled himself as, I think, a disappointed devolutionist, thought that clarity might be helpful to some degree. I am possibly helping the Minister here in saying that permanent Scottish government does not actually mean permanent SNP Scottish government. However, the point that has become rather more concerning in Scotland and was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is the question of a one-party state. This is a warning; it is not actually a representation of the reality at the moment. However, these issues should not be ignored. They reflect real concerns in some quarters in Scotland.
The noble Earl, Lord Stair, raised the question of the committee structure in the Scottish Parliament and identified that the tendency for domination by one particular party is of real concern. My noble friend Lord Maxton reminds us that devolution is a democratic process, and I trust that his words will be carried northwards. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, questioned the constitutional and intellectual coherence, and I think many people can understand his point. However, it is perhaps a high bar in UK constitutional matters to require intellectual coherence at every stage. One has only to occasionally consider the debates about the reform of the House of Lords, where one or two oddities have presented themselves—not least the constitution of those of us who are participant.
The question raised as to whether the broader UK context might lead us into some issue was developed by my noble friend Lord Brennan. He requires an answer as to how one is going to build confidence in Scotland, as well as in the rest of the UK, in these procedures. That is quite an important part of how this process should develop, because its impact is not restricted inevitably to Scotland; it is part of the whole unitary state that is the UK.
I turn to an issue raised briefly in relation to welfare. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, raised the question of delivery and responsibility in this area—an entirely sensible approach. I take that as support for the proposition that we should establish a Joint Committee on welfare devolution. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, took this point very much to heart in her intervention, demonstrating the question of the competence of the Scottish Government. She identified this as an issue relating to health, and therefore welfare. Indeed, she took it further to look at, correctly, the issues of education, policing in Scotland and so on, a point echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Foulkes is not entirely satisfied with the Scottish Parliament in this regard. Since he participated in it from time to time, he is a substantial witness in relation to how the Scottish Parliament may proceed in its competence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, continued to develop these concerns in relation to how the participants—the Members of the Scottish Parliament—were in a position to fully seize and deal with the new responsibilities that would be coming their way. That question was picked up by a fellow member of the Faculty of Advocates, my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey. He added the question about SNP competence, but as I understood it he was keen to welcome their presence here as well—presumably on the basis that those who came here would be more competent.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, had an interesting suggestion that the Select Committee structure might usefully be brought to the attention of the Scottish Parliament. That echoes the notion that the current committee structure is perhaps not providing the level of scrutiny that one would desire.
The critical issue that has been repeated by many noble Lords is the fiscal framework. This is, of course, the focus of important matters. It has been looked at by both the Economic Affairs Committee and the Constitution Committee. I respectfully suggest that it is clear to anyone that a Bill of the highest constitutional importance deserves wide and full consideration. This House—the very existence of which is justified on its being a revising Chamber—has an especially important position in such constitutional debate. The coherence of the UK as a unitary state is not an irrelevant consideration in that debate.
My noble friend Lord Hollick set out a number of issues where there are real concerns. It is important that we see what the answers to these questions are. Maybe we will have to wait until January next year, but it would be helpful if we had some indication of where the discussion between Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government has been going.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, raised his “three unknowns”, which raise very clear issues—fairness, borrowing powers and future transparency. These are mightily significant issues, on which this House really requires some kind of instruction if it is properly to scrutinise the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, with his well-known economic expertise, raised the question of Scottish living standards and the way that they may be affected in ways that are not minor. These issues also have to be considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, raised the complex question of indexing. Again, this is not something that can be dealt with in a few minutes of discussion. These are complicated issues and some insight into them is, I respectfully suggest, what this House deserves.
The noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, also raised the question of scrutiny and the terms of a memorandum of understanding. Again, some hint might be useful as to where this is going, because these involve deep issues that may be with us for many years. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is correct that it is important that the Bill be passed before the Scottish election, but it is important that we have some understanding of where we will be, whether it is in January or shortly thereafter.
When he looks at these kinds of issues, the Minister might wish to share with the House, for example, whether an analysis has been offered by the Scottish Government—a considered analysis, one trusts—of the two committees: the Economic Affairs Committee and the Constitution Committee. They have raised important issues; have the Scottish Government discussed them with Her Majesty’s Government? It would be interesting to know whether they see force in these points. Where do they stand on these issues?
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I confess that I am neither an advocate nor even a solicitor, which probably excuses my inability to grasp the answer to what is a simple question. The question at the centre of all we have been discussing is the consideration of the Bill, in this House and the House of Commons, without the fiscal framework. That is what has run through every debate. Given that the Scottish Parliament will not consider the generality of the Bill without the fiscal framework and that in July, the Government expressed that it was perfectly feasible to discuss the Bill while externally discussing the framework, why is it not possible to agree, during these discussions with the Scottish Parliament, that we will complete the final stages in parallel with it? That would not be unfair to anyone. It would mean that, since the Scottish Parliament will not consider the final details of the Bill without the framework, we would simultaneously be considering it and the Bill, and doing so in a spirit of concord and agreement. Perhaps as an advocate, as well as a noble and learned Lord, my noble and learned friend will explain why that process would be impossible.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
One of the problems one faces as an advocate is being tempted to follow what is put before one by a judge. One is quite often tempted down that road. What my noble friend is putting to me, in a style which is not wholly unfamiliar in the courts, is one such temptation. I would care to deflect it to the Minister. This is not something that the loyal Opposition can put into the discussions between Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government but I respectfully suggest that this interesting proposition from my noble friend Lord Reid be introduced into those discussions.
It is clear that we have to find a mechanism that enables the discussion on this critical area to be slightly widened in its understanding. We have ended up with the Scottish Government’s view not being revealed other than in minutes that do not really set out what has happened. My noble friend Lord Foulkes raised the question of what plan B is. I think we can legitimately assume the answer is that there is no plan B and that negotiations will be successful. That may be reassuring for some people but for others perhaps it will not. My noble friend Lord McAvoy was clear that we simply have to trust Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government to produce a result. It would be helpful if they gave us a basis for developing that confidence.
My noble friend Lady Liddell asked if we might see the minutes and papers. She was joined in that request by the noble Lord, Lord Stephen. These are interesting points but one can understand the competition between the politics of the issue and the scrutiny. It would be helpful if we were given some guidance as to where the balance lies. Scrutiny, after all, is the purpose of this Chamber.
I was just coming to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Might the noble and learned Lord turn his attention to telling us what the Opposition’s position is on whether consideration of this Bill should be delayed so that we are able to consider it with the fiscal framework?
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
The answer that I have just foreshadowed is the question of trust. We are prepared to trust Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government to conduct their negotiations. We would like to have some further basis on which to develop and strengthen that trust, which might even meet some of the requirements of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. He looks at me quizzically—
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
One sometimes finds that there are questions that do not have a yes or no answer. The question of trust is something that one might reflect upon and, if that is lost in translation in some way, I would be happy to explain later.
The charge that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has made against the vow is that it reveals a certain degree of illiteracy. Be that as it may, as the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, pointed out, the vow is a fact; it has been acted on and here we are with the consequences of that vow. We can analyse questions of the Barnett formula, which have been discussed in this House over and over again, but perhaps that will not really add very much to the discussion of this Bill.
I am conscious that I am taking rather more time than perhaps—
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
I suspect people are demanding even more but perhaps I might briefly rush through a few points. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, identified that there had been four Joint Exchequer Committee meetings. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, suggested that an increase in efficiency of even once a week might develop a bit more immediacy. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, agreed with this, and one respectfully has difficulty seeing why things cannot be speeded up—including my speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, raised the complexity of definitions in tax matters, not least with regard to the Scottish taxpayer. I suspect that we will come back to that in due course because these are critical matters which, when the reality comes home, may involve all sorts of cross-border issues, where already advice has been taken by various parties which wish to alter their jurisdiction.
The question of complexity and difficulty was raised in the context of the airport duty. This was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. These are perhaps not the most important issues but they are complicated issues. How does all this fit together? These are areas where we need some guidance.
The question of consensus not always being able to be achieved was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. That is an entirely appropriate way in which to look at these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, had confidence in the process and we may trust that his confidence that the Minister will report to the House is not misplaced. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, perhaps did not fully share that confidence but stressed that due consideration was critical in such a constitutional Bill. He suggested that perhaps the Minister might produce some answers in plain English—with which we might all agree.
As I move towards a conclusion—
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
Much obliged. The question of the use of devolved powers vexed a number of noble Lords—quite sensibly so. The issue of how the Scottish Government and the UK Government will operate together in the way in which the Scottish Government use these powers will be a matter of real concern. We shall see how this works, because it will have to work.
My noble friend Lady Liddell evinced her concern about the Olympian—or possibly Olympic—level of griping that may be achieved by the SNP and which may be made manifest. This is a real challenge for the Scottish Government to act in the interests of the people of Scotland—those who live in Scotland and who will have to be governed by a Scottish Government using these new powers.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, raised the question of localism. It will be interesting to see whether the Scottish Government are able to lose their centralising impulse and perhaps move towards a more appropriate and modern concept of localism.
The question of a constitutional convention was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell, Lord Kerr and Lord Thomas, and many other noble Lords. This is an attractive proposition which we on this side would encourage.
The suggestion from my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane of an analysis of full fiscal autonomy is, again, a useful contribution to the discussion and, from this side, we would encourage that.
Lest there is any doubt, we on this side support the Bill. We see it as a challenge to the Scottish Government. It is also a challenge to this Government to work sensibly, coherently and perhaps transparently to produce an Act. We are for this Bill.
Lord Dunlop
My Lords, this has been a lively debate, to say the least. It has been a good, informed and productive debate, and has demonstrated once again the important role of this House in scrutinising legislation. The House has had the benefit of the experience and wisdom of many of your Lordships who have helped shape the destiny of Scotland over many years—before the Scottish Parliament, at its birth and in the years since—including the noble Lords, Lord Steel and Lord Reid, my noble friend Lord Lang, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and of course my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who delivered another tour de force today. I have to say that the prospect of being given a Glasgow kiss by my noble friend does not bear thinking about. The prospect of spending many hours with him in the coming weeks in Committee is something I hope I can look forward to.
The Scotland Bill implements the Smith commission, and the House has benefited enormously from the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, himself and his fellow commissioner, my noble friend Lady Goldie—two people who were actually in the room as the agreement was reached. I am sure, once again, that the whole House would wish to express thanks to them for their work. I also congratulate, as others have done, my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, on their superb maiden speeches.
A number of viewpoints on the Bill and the Smith commission agreement have been expressed in the debate, and the House has benefited from a broad range of views. Noble Lords have indicated areas of the Bill to which they will return as it proceeds through the House. I am pleased that, whatever the views on the particulars of the Bill, the debate has shown that delivering the Smith commission agreement is a commitment of the three principal UK parties represented in this House and the other place. Indeed, the Government were elected on this commitment, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have recognised this and indicated their support, in particular for the support from the two Front Benches opposite. It is right and proper that the House scrutinises the Bill, and I am sure we will return to many of the points raised in the debate.
I now turn to the points that have been raised. There are so many that I apologise in advance that I will not be able to do justice to them all, but I will try to pick up the main themes that have been raised in the debate. There was some discussion this afternoon and evening about the constitutional provisions. My noble friends Lord Lang and Lord Norton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned these provisions specifically, as did other noble Lords. The Advocate-General and I look forward to engaging with noble Lords on these matters in more detail in Committee.
Clause 1 delivers paragraph 21 of the Smith commission agreement which sets out that the UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent institutions. Last September, more than 2 million Scottish people voted to remain part of the United Kingdom and to retain Scotland’s two Parliaments and two Governments. This clause is set within that context and underscores the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government while at the same time remaining loyal to the fundamental principles of the UK’s constitutional arrangements.
This clause states in law that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are a permanent part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. The constitution of the UK Parliament cannot bind a successive Parliament. The sovereignty of Parliament remains. The Smith commission’s intention here was not that the constitutional position be changed but that legislation should accurately reflect what the political understanding already is, that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are permanent parts of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. This clause therefore delivers the Smith commission agreement while respecting the UK’s constitutional arrangements. The amendments made to this clause in the other place put that beyond all doubt.
Clause 2 delivers paragraph 22 of the Smith commission agreement which sets out that the Sewel convention will be put on a statutory footing. The Sewel convention was never intended to change the sovereignty of the UK Parliament—nor was it intended to prevent the UK Parliament from making laws across the United Kingdom. As with Clause 1, the intention of the Smith commission was not that the constitutional position be changed but that legislation reflects accurately what the political understanding already is. Clause 2 simply sets out that where legislation in the UK Parliament relates to a devolved area consent will normally be obtained. Since the Scottish Parliament came into existence, the UK Government have consistently adhered to the Sewel convention. A legislative consent motion is always sought before Westminster passes legislation for Scotland in relation to devolved matters. The practice set out in the devolution guidance note 10 works well and we expect this to continue but if the Smith commission had intended for the guidance note to be placed on a statutory footing it would have specified that and it did not. The convention is that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The Sewel convention is a political convention which does not give rise to justiciable rights. It is right that this Parliament, while respecting the views of the Scottish Parliament and its right to legislate, continues to be able to legislate for all matters without restriction on its sovereignty.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of a constitutional convention; the arguments have been well rehearsed in this House. This Government are ensuring that we work hard to govern in the interests of one nation and one United Kingdom. It has already been made clear many times before that the Government do not believe that there is a popular demand for a convention. Our priority is to deliver Smith, the St David’s Day agreement and the Stormont House agreement in full.
Another important element of the Smith commission agreement that has been raised—in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Lang and Lord Kirkwood—is the need to improve intergovernmental working. As noble Lords will be aware, historically the arrangements for intergovernmental relations within the United Kingdom have certainly not been perfect. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, drew our attention to this in his personal recommendations and the work of the Constitution Committee of this House, chaired by my noble friend Lord Lang, highlights the value of ongoing evaluation of our formal structures to ensure their relevance. None the less, your Lordships will be aware that there are already many positive examples of intergovernmental working at both bilateral and multilateral levels. I can testify from my own personal experience that whatever the public differences, the two Governments work constructively together on a whole range of issues. A good practical example of improved intergovernmental working is the joint ministerial group on welfare which was established to provide a forum for discussion to ensure the effective implementation of welfare-related aspects of the Smith agreement and has facilitated increased engagement. This group is tackling the practical issues of implementation, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, talked about concurrent powers. A good example of this close working is on the universal credit flexibilities in the Bill.
In addition, the Prime Minister and the heads of the three devolved Administrations agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee last December that existing intergovernmental mechanisms should be reviewed. This is an important part of the agreement, and one that this Government take seriously. That work is ongoing, and the outcomes of that review will be considered by the heads of the four Governments at the next plenary meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee. I will of course be happy to update the House with any developments. The Government are clear that positive intergovernmental relations, whether through formal or informal structures, will be absolutely key to making the powers a success for the people of Scotland.
Turning to more specific matters, the Crown Estate has been raised by several noble Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Sanderson raised the issue of whether the Bill should provide for further double devolution of Crown Estate management. The Smith commission agreement stated that following the transfer of the management of the Crown Estate’s Scottish assets, responsibility for the management of those assets would be further devolved to local authority areas.
Further devolution within Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine. Clause 34 enables the Scottish Parliament to make its own legislation about the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland after the transfer—and beforehand, should it wish to have arrangements in place in readiness for the transfer. It would not be in keeping with the principle or spirit of devolution for the UK Parliament to determine how the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland should be further devolved.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, also raised concerns that the management is being transferred to a political body. The Bill provides for the transfer of the management of the Scottish assets to Scottish Ministers or to a person nominated by them. I would expect the Scottish Government to want an arm’s-length body to take over the management, but it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide. This is not entirely dissimilar to the current arrangements. The current managers of the Crown Estate are the Crown Estate commissioners, which is an independent commercial organisation established under statute. It is not an instrument of government policy; nevertheless, it is a public body. The Treasury is its sponsor department and has general oversight of the Crown Estate’s business.
I turn to the fiscal framework and the timing of Committee. Noble Lords’ important points about the fiscal framework and the next stages of the Bill’s passage through this House have been a consistent thread running throughout the debate. I reaffirm my thanks to the Economic Affairs Committee and the Constitution Committee of this House for their reports —in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Lang and Lord Hollick, who set out so clearly the conclusions of their committees. I can, however, reassure noble Lords, as I said in my opening speech, that the negotiations absolutely address the issues raised in the Economic Affairs Committee report, including the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sanderson about the robustness of the independent fiscal scrutiny.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth raised the second no-detriment principle, and the Smith agreement says that there should be:
“No detriment as a result of UK Government or Scottish Government policy”.
The negotiations between the UK and Scottish Governments are discussing how this principle and others outlined in the Smith agreement can be applied in practice. This is all about fiscal responsibility and a proper allocation of risk between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, so that the Scottish Government reap the rewards of good policy choices and accept the costs and consequences of poor ones. This is not just an objective of the UK Government. John Swinney has said publicly that that is his objective, too. He said recently before the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee:
“Scotland should retain the rewards of her success in the same way as we must bear the risks of the policies and actions that we pursue”.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
Before the Minister leaves this subject, let us get to the heart of the matter. The thread that has been running through tonight’s discussions has not been about the coherence or otherwise of each individual element of the fiscal framework. It has been the question of whether this Parliament can possibly proceed with the Bill without knowing the fiscal framework that is the crucial, central element that determines all its other aspects, particularly in view of the fact that the Scottish Parliament has, very sensibly, under the leadership of the SNP, taken the view that it cannot and will not ratify the terms of the Bill without first knowing the fiscal framework. That is the question—not any individual, tactical item of the framework, but whether we are flying blind. Will the Minister therefore address the question that I put to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench, which he generously offered to share with the Minister: why is it that, if we can envisage simultaneous negotiations outside Parliament with proceedings inside Parliament, we cannot envisage simultaneous conduct and conclusion of the Bill, including the financial framework, on terms that the Scottish Parliament itself thinks are reasonable? Would he respond to that? I hope he will say that he will inject this into the cordial and constructive negotiations that are going on, but if he is not prepared to do that, will he tell us why not? Is this just a matter of parliamentary timetabling, or is there some matter of principle that the Scottish Parliament should be encouraged and permitted to make a decision in the full light of all the facts while the British Parliament should be asked to make a decision with half the facts missing?
Lord Dunlop
The noble Lord anticipated what I was going to talk about. He is always very prescient about these matters. I want to explain why the Government believe that the Bill can proceed without delay and without compromising the detailed scrutiny of the fiscal framework, which Parliament rightly expects to carry out. First, there are the practicalities around delivering the promises that we made. People in Scotland made a decisive choice to remain part of the United Kingdom. They voted for a more powerful Scottish Parliament with the strength that comes from our union of nations. To achieve this, voters in Scotland will expect to go to the polls next May knowing what powers the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government will have, so they can cast their votes knowing how the parties will use those powers.
It is important to get the Scotland Bill to Royal Assent before the Scottish Parliament elections next year. A number of noble Lords have made that point in this debate. That is for a very good reason. It is not just a political priority for the Government. I believe—this has been confirmed in the debate today—it is a priority shared by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, too. If we seek to delay the Bill now, it will be very difficult to meet that timetable, which is one that Scottish voters expect and one that the UK Parliament has adhered to every step of the way so far.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am very grateful to the Minister for picking up the question of when we will see the fiscal framework. Everyone without exception said that it was really required. Will he explain what he means when he says that the Bill must “be there” before the Scottish elections? Does he literally mean the Scottish elections, or does he mean when purdah starts before the Scottish elections? Is the deadline the first Thursday in May or the last week or March?
Lord Dunlop
To answer the noble and learned Lord’s last point, we absolutely need the Act by the time the Scottish Parliament breaks for the election.
The second point I wanted to make is on ensuring that the fiscal framework receives detailed scrutiny. There has been widespread support around the House for that concept. I reassure noble Lords that both Governments aim to complete the framework as soon as possible to give both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament time for due consideration of it. As mentioned by several noble Lords, the Government will keep updating Parliament after each negotiation session, as we have done. We will invite all relevant committees to look at the framework, including Lords committees and the Scottish Affairs Committee in the Commons. We will welcome their comments.
If legislation is needed to implement the framework, both Houses would be involved in that in the normal ways. There was such legislation in 2012, with primary legislation debated in both Houses. As I said in my opening speech and reaffirm now, the Government’s firm intention is for the fiscal framework to be available to the Scottish Parliament and both Houses of this Parliament before the Bill completes its passage. In response to my noble friend Lord Griffiths, I confirm that the intention is for this to be a detailed written agreement.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Forgive me but, as I mentioned in my speech, my noble friend answered a Written Question in July saying that he expected the fiscal framework to proceed in parallel with the consideration in both Houses. He told us that the relations with the Scottish Government are very cordial and doing well. Why, then, is it taking so long to reach agreement? I listened to his words very carefully. Is he saying that he would be prepared for this Bill to complete all its stages without the fiscal framework being known because it is just so politically important to have it on the statute book before the elections? I cannot believe that he is.
Lord Dunlop
On my noble friend’s first point, it has been evident from the debate today that the framework is of critical importance. It raises very complex issues that need to be worked through to get it right. That is exactly what we are doing. I repeat what I said: the Government’s firm intention is for the fiscal framework to be available to the Scottish Parliament and both Houses of this Parliament before the Bill completes its passage. Clearly, a range of procedural options are available. We will need to consider them nearer the time in light of how negotiations progress.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I would be grateful for further clarification from the Minister because he said, I think, in the very useful briefing he gave for Peers last week, “If the fiscal framework gives rise to further legislation”. Could he elaborate on what he has in mind there? What kind of legislation would that be? Would it be amendments to this Bill, or fresh primary or second legislation?
Lord Dunlop
That all depends on what is agreed in the fiscal framework. For example, if you look at the last Scotland Bill, there were issues to do with borrowing that needed to be put in primary legislation. The outcome of the fiscal framework will determine what legislation we need to underpin that.
The third point I wanted to make was on the legitimacy of the process. Given the degree of cross-party consensus on the devolution of further powers to Scotland, whatever the result of the general election in May there would have been a UK government Minister standing here arguing for the Smith agreement to be implemented in full. That is the nature of the cross-party agreement. The Scotland Bill and delivering the Smith commission agreement in full was, as I said, a manifesto commitment of all three UK parties. Against that background, I ask the House to consider how it would play with voters of Scotland, six months out from important Holyrood elections, if your Lordships were seen to hold up the passage of this Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I wonder if the Minister could answer the question I asked right at the start. I have waited patiently for the last seven hours for him to do so. If there is no agreement on the fiscal framework —that is entirely possible—and, as a result of that, the Scottish Parliament refuses to give consent to this Bill, what is his alternative?
Lord Dunlop
I am afraid that I am going to give to the noble Lord the same response that I gave earlier. We are working very hard to get a success and an agreement on this fiscal framework.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was one of those who suggested that the Scottish Government do not want a fiscal framework agreed or to take on the new powers in this Bill. I do not accept that—and I have to say that I think there has been a tension in this debate. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Lang, and others, have called for improving intergovernmental relations and, on the other hand, we have heard it said that actually we should not trust the Scottish Government. We have to operate on the basis that the Scottish Government are negotiating in good faith.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Could the Minister answer the question that I put to the noble Lord, Lord Smith? John Swinney signed the Smith agreement, which was meant to be agreed by all parties. Then he came out immediately and denounced it. How can you describe that as good faith?
Lord Dunlop
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, answered that question very well. He put it in the context of an agreement, every aspect of which they signed up to—but, clearly, the SNP is a party that believes in independence, and therefore the whole context should be seen in that light.
The Deputy First Minister has agreed that finalising the fiscal framework is essential to delivering the Smith commission proposals. To touch on what the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said earlier, in the debate, he has spoken to both Governments and is confident that talks will deliver a fiscal framework in line with the principles set out in the agreement. As I said in my opening speech, talks have been constructive. We have agreed every step jointly with the Scottish Government and are working hard to agree a fiscal framework that is built to last, and is fair for Scotland and for the UK as a whole.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
Without in any way wishing to hold up the Bill, is it not possible to increase the work rate of those working on the fiscal agreement? Meeting once a month seems pretty leisurely to me.
Lord Dunlop
I assure the noble Lord that these are ministerial meetings of the Joint Exchequer Committee. In between those meetings, very intensive work is going on to agree the fiscal framework. If, unlike me, you believe—
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I know that the hour is late and do not want to prolong the debate, but could the Minister address the question that I put in my speech? What standing will the agreement or framework have? Is it a revision of the statement of funding policy, which is a Treasury policy, or will it be a stand-alone agreement between the two Administrations? What standing will that have, as a document, and will it require ratification by the Scottish Parliament, which obviously involves a timetable entirely in its hands?
Lord Dunlop
The Deputy First Minister has made it clear that, for the Scottish Parliament to give its legislative consent to the Bill, it would have to be satisfied that there was an agreed fiscal framework in place.
I return to the argument that I was making. If, unlike me, you believe that the Scottish Government are not serious about reaching agreement, that is not a good reason to delay the Bill—far from it. Doing so would hand the Scottish Government a get-out-of-jail-free card, which is not right for the people of Scotland, who expect these powers to be implemented.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Could the Minister explain to me—perhaps I am being a bit thick—whether he thinks that the Scottish Parliament is right to insist on considering the Bill with a fiscal framework? I do. If so, why does he think that it is okay to have the House of Commons consider it without the fiscal framework and, perhaps, to have this House consider it without the fiscal framework?
Lord Dunlop
As has been clear from everything I have been saying, we want to get a fiscal framework agreed so that this House and the House of Commons can look at that agreement. This is what we are working to achieve.
The Smith commission secured the cross-party agreement of all five of Scotland’s political parties. The parties subsequently included manifesto commitments to deliver it and supported the introduction of the Scotland Bill. While there are those in the other place who do not consider the Scotland Bill goes far enough, there is support for it and for further powers for the Scottish Parliament. As the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, pointed out, the nationalists like nothing better than to talk about process. We want political debate in Scotland to move on to a debate about policy and how the powers in this Bill that rebalance the devolution settlement by reintroducing real fiscal responsibility to the Scottish Parliament will be used. The Government look forward to engaging with this in full and I commend this Bill to the House.
Lord Hollick
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. In particular, there have been two outstanding maiden speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As one of the few English speakers in the debate, it was a privilege for me to hear our Scottish brothers and sisters—all part of the union, I am pleased to say—making such fine speeches, analysing the issues very well and intervening in a pugnacious way—all laced with good humour. It has been a privilege to be part of it.
I think the Minister has struggled to answer the question which has been put to him on a number of occasions. He has heard everybody in the House say that the fiscal framework is necessary for the proper scrutiny of the Bill. I think he accepts this. If the fiscal framework is delayed—and it has been delayed so far—what steps will the Government take to ensure that both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in the light of the fiscal framework?
My noble friend Lord Reid has come up with an interesting proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has intervened on a number of occasions. The question still hangs in the air and it is one that we will continue to follow closely. If the fiscal framework is not available and the Government seek to pass this legislation, this House will need to look at it very carefully, because I do not think it is the wish of this House. It may well be, on that occasion, that the House will need to divide and give its decision. On this occasion I do not think that is necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill
(8 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is a fundamental part of the agreement reached last week after 10 weeks of intensive talks involving the Northern Ireland parties, the Secretary of State and the Irish Government. The talks resulted in an agreement called A Fresh Start: the Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan. As part of this agreement, the Government are committed to bringing forward this Bill, which will enable it to legislate for welfare reform in Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords will be aware of much of the background to why this legislation is necessary, so I will not go into a great deal of detail now. In summary, while welfare is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, it has in practice maintained parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. This parity principle has served Northern Ireland well. It means benefit claimants have been able to avail of the same rates of benefit as those in the rest of the United Kingdom, something that would not have been affordable if Northern Ireland had to support its own system.
However, over the past three years, the Northern Ireland Assembly has been unable to implement welfare reform legislation mirroring that of the Government’s Welfare Reform Act 2012. This has resulted in Northern Ireland’s welfare system being not just slightly different but fundamentally and structurally different from that in place in the rest of the United Kingdom. This difference is simply unsustainable. Once Great Britain moves entirely to the new system based around universal credit, Northern Ireland will no longer have access to the DWP computer systems on which it relies to assess and deliver people’s benefits. It would be left with no option but to devise, implement and maintain an entirely separate and more expensive system and meet the massive costs of the IT needed to support it. For a small devolved Administration, this would be prohibitive. Budgets for other departments would have to be cut very significantly to pay for it with an inevitable impact on front-line services and the capital spending available for crucial infrastructure, such as road improvements. This would undermine the credibility of the devolved institutions and would also do irreparable damage to the political relationships which are central to making them work.
This scenario was dangerously close to becoming a reality following the Assembly’s failure in May to pass its Welfare Reform Bill. On 26 May, the Bill passed its final stage with the backing of three of the then five parties in the Executive, but it was blocked by the other two parties using a device in the Assembly known as a petition of concern meaning that the legislation had to have cross-community support, which it failed to achieve. Northern Ireland’s devolved institutions were once again faced with almost complete deadlock and, by early autumn, it looked increasingly likely that welfare reform would bring down the Executive itself.
This is the context in which the agreement was reached and in which the Government have agreed to bring forward this Bill. The Bill provides the Government with a power to legislate for welfare in Northern Ireland via an order in council. The power provided is a broad power, for a number of reasons. In providing a broad power, the Bill allows the Government to implement various Northern Ireland-specific flexibilities and top-ups. In doing so, the Government are demonstrating that their intention is not to impose Great Britain’s welfare system on Northern Ireland. Instead, we are proposing to use the power provided by this Bill to legislate for the Northern Ireland-tailored welfare system agreed by the Northern Ireland parties. The order in council that will follow this Bill, if passed, will make this clear. The second reason for opting for a broad power in this Bill is that it enables the Government to help implement other welfare reforms, including those contained in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill currently being considered by noble Lords.
It is important to stress three important considerations at this point. First, this Bill does not affect the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In other words, if the Assembly can agree to do so, it can continue to pass welfare legislation. The Bill therefore creates a situation in which welfare is both devolved—meaning that the Assembly can legislate for it—and effectively reserved, meaning the Government can legislate for it. Secondly, the legislative approach outlined in this Bill has arisen at the request of the Northern Ireland parties. The Assembly last week granted its consent, by an overwhelming majority of 70 votes to 22, to this Bill. Thirdly, I assure the House that the UK Government have no intention or desire to legislate on an ongoing basis for welfare in Northern Ireland. This is why Clause 3 time-limits the power so that an order cannot be made after 31 December 2016.
In closing, I shall comment briefly on the speed at which this Bill is being taken through both Houses. I fully accept that what we are asking the House to do today is exceptional. I agree that taking all stages of a Bill through the House in a single day is not ideal and I fully understand that a number of noble Lords have misgivings about it. The Government would very much prefer not to have to take this approach. I can assure the House that the Government are fast-tracking this legislation only because we view it to be absolutely necessary in this specific case; necessary to ensure that welfare reform is no longer an issue undermining the political process in Northern Ireland; necessary to implement the agreement that was reached at Stormont last Tuesday; and necessary to underpin the stability and survival of the power-sharing devolved institutions at Stormont.
If we do not get this legislation on to the statute book and continue with the implementation of last week’s agreement, there will be a very serious risk that devolution will collapse, leading to a return to direct rule. A resumption of direct rule would inevitably mean many items of long and complex primary legislation being taken through by order, month after month. This would mean not only denying such legislation scrutiny in the Assembly but would also inevitably take up large amounts of parliamentary time. The Government’s approach may be unconventional, but it does have the cross-community support of a vast number of Northern Ireland’s elected representatives. This is a Bill which will help resolve the long-running, politically divisive stalemate over welfare reform. It is a crucial element of establishing and building upon the fresh start announced last week and it offers the only realistic prospect of resolving Northern Ireland’s welfare reform impasse. I beg to move.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, first I say a word of thanks to the Minister for his explication of things at the start of this Second Reading. I also offer him an element of sympathy: there are many people looking in from outside who, regarding his carriage of the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill for some seven hours and his then being condemned to the Irish legislation, would properly define that as cruel and unusual punishment. We should be informed by the Chief Whip what on earth the poor Minister has done to deserve this. We will, however, proceed with what is of course a matter of great seriousness and concern.
The Minister said some things about the speed with which all the stages of the Bill are—we hope—being carried through the House this evening and the context in which it is being brought here. I am sure all parliamentarians would like more time and consideration to deal with this matter, but we have to reflect that this time last year we were coming up to the Stormont House agreement. At that stage, we were not at all sure that there would be an agreement. It was, apparently, signed off before Christmas but it all began to unravel in the early part of the new year, after a Sinn Fein ard fheis. All of us can wholly understand the Government’s concern to make sure that this legislation gets through and is put in place before any similar mishap can occur.
Unfortunately, we might say that it is unusual for legislation in regard to Northern Ireland—and particularly in regard to the peace process—to be carried through in such an urgent fashion, but I am afraid that is not the history of things. It has regularly been the case that unusual arrangements have had to be made for the timing or speed of Northern Ireland legislation. Your Lordships’ House, and the other place too, has often felt that the legislation came somewhat pre-cooked, in terms of agreements reached with the Northern Ireland parties. That is not an entirely satisfactory situation, because they themselves do not always consider the consequences of their actions, and inaction, terribly well. It is therefore important that others can help them on it.
If we take, for example, the so-called A Fresh Start agreement of which this piece of legislation is a part, in truth it is much less satisfactory, appropriate and complete than the Stormont House agreement a year ago. In almost all aspects it is less satisfactory. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister, in their introduction to A Fresh Start, talk about it being,
“a far-reaching and comprehensive framework”.
The framework bit is right, but it is hard to be persuaded that it is “far-reaching and comprehensive”, since it almost completely excludes any substantial dealing with the past, and things such as flags, parades and strategies to deal with paramilitarism are very much a framework rather than evidenced delivery.
In fact, one has the sense, not just in this agreement but in the way in which the Assembly and Executive have operated, that while there may be a commitment to the institutional architecture of power-sharing there does not seem to be much commitment to the relational sharing of power, which is actually what the whole thing was about. In many ways we find this legislation coming before us as an admission of failure.
It is also a little puzzling why it has taken so long to get here. The noble Lord will know that, when the issue arose at the start, I advised him and his right honourable friend in the other place that the best solution was to take the matter back to Westminster. Why did I say that? First, I did not believe that Sinn Fein would bring down the whole edifice of devolution on the basis of this being taken back to Westminster. It would know that, if it was taken back to Westminster because devolution had collapsed, the Government would simply implement the matter in full, so it would have saved nothing but lost all the benefits of the devolved Administration and Assembly. I did not believe it was going to do that.
Secondly, all through the period of the Assembly, right from early times, unionists were coming to me with a great deal of frustration about legislation in this area. They would say, and the noble Lord has indicated this, “We are expected to deal with this so-called devolved matter, but we know perfectly well we have no real freedom in what we do because maintaining parity with the rest of the United Kingdom is critical”. Indeed, those who have a long memory—and in Northern Ireland quite a few people do—recall that the first Stormont Parliament was unable to sustain itself financially, unable to use the devolved powers it had to sustain itself, and came to the UK Government and said, “Please take these matters back from us because we cannot survive financially”. Unionists frequently said to me, “It would be far better for the matter to be taken back, because we debate things and have to agree to things we do not like and do not agree with, because we have no power to make any difference”. I never thought there would be an enormous problem in taking this back, and it would have been better if it could have been taken back at an earlier stage when there could have been proper debate and discussion and fewer financial problems created for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
While this comes to us, albeit belatedly and with not very much time, many other issues are not coming to us at all. Perhaps the most notable and distressing is the whole question of the legacy of the past and the impact that failure to reach agreement on this has had on victims. On Monday in Belfast, I spoke at a conference, which continued for a couple of days, looking at post-traumatic stress disorder and the impact on individuals and groups of people in the community because of the Troubles in the past. There was a great sense of anger, from victims and from those working with them and dealing with them, that any agreements that they thought had been reached a year ago seemed to have fallen to pieces. Although both Her Majesty’s Government and the Irish Government, in their comments in the foreword to A Fresh Start, point out that they are going to continue to discuss and try to reach understandings and agreements, there is a sense of betrayal on the part of victims and people who have worked with them that we are now back further than ever.
Can the Minister indicate whether he seriously believes that progress is going to be made on this, or is it the case that those outside the political process—outside the Government, the Assembly and the Executive—are going to have to find a way of taking responsibility for addressing these issues? Repeatedly, there has been disappointment, and there does not really seem to be much evidence on the hard issues that created the failure that much progress is going to be made over the next number of months.
As the Minister will probably realise, I also look with some scepticism at the monitoring device that is being proposed. I expressed some scepticism about the one that was proposed on the last occasion when we addressed this matter in the House, and I have every reason to believe that I was right, because it produced more problems than it resolved. It is not clear to me how what is proposed in the terms of reference for the upcoming monitoring commission will resolve any problems. It has much less power than the Independent Monitoring Commission, on which I sat. It has power only to produce a few proposals for the Executive, which will then fall into disagreement about how they should be implemented. That does not seem a satisfactory arrangement at all.
There is financial support, which one is glad to see. However, problems remain for the Police Service of Northern Ireland in dealing with the many issues of the past. Without sufficient resources, dealing with the legacy of the past will take away from the normal policing of the here and now.
Isolating this Bill from the rest of the issues, at best we will get it through quickly so that these matters can be addressed for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that, frankly, the matter will continue to be dealt with in this Parliament. I know that there is a sunset clause that will end this legislation in 2016, but I see very little likelihood that there will be agreement by the parties to accept the real responsibility, which ought to be theirs, of dealing with social security matters. We may well have to deal with these things in the future but, if that is the only cost of reaching agreement and continuing with devolution, frankly, it will be a small price to pay.
Although the noble Lord talked about the legislative load that would come to us if devolution were to collapse, that is the least important thing. If devolution were to collapse, it would mean that the whole peace process collapsed, and the implications of that would be absolutely enormous. If the cost of keeping the show on the road is that we continue to address welfare questions through a follow-up to this legislation, I say to the noble Lord that it will be a small price to pay for the continuation of the other, more important parts. However, if the cost is a refusal to address the needs of the victims and the legacy of the past, that will gnaw away at devolution and at the credibility of the devolved institutions.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill, which I regard as one of the most important components of the Stormont fresh start agreement. Welfare undoubtedly represented the most intractable problem which arose during the process of trying to achieve the successful implementation of the Stormont House agreement of 23 December 2014. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who put short-term political considerations aside and worked tirelessly on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland to bring about agreement on this very issue. In particular, the unwavering commitment of my party leader, Peter Robinson, deserves the highest praise, and there is no doubt that his impending retirement represents a significant loss for the whole community.
As the Minister pointed out, the Bill gives Parliament power to legislate for welfare reform in Northern Ireland, and it confers on the Secretary of State and the relevant Northern Ireland departments powers to make further provision by regulation and order. The passage of this Bill into law will at last bring to an end a period of financial instability, during which the Treasury has been forced to impose financial restrictions on Northern Ireland departments because of the failure of the Executive to reach agreement on welfare issues. Indeed, instead of facing fines of some £2 million a week, the Executive will now have a stable and sustainable budget, which is clearly a prerequisite for successful devolved government in Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that all those involved will build on this agreement by working together to achieve the resolution of the outstanding contentious issues, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.
It is expected that the Bill will facilitate the extension of the provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 to Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the Executive will retain the power to compensate some groups and, in particular, working families who may suffer a loss of benefits as a result. The agreement to increase efforts to tackle fraud and error in benefit payments should also, I believe, prove beneficial. The provision that the Executive can retain 50% of any money saved should provide an effective incentive.
It is important that the Bill is passed this evening so that the Order in Council containing regulation-making powers and measures to implement welfare reform may become law as soon as possible. I welcome the provision in Clause 3(3) that no Order in Council may be made under the Bill after 31 December 2016. But does the Minister agree that it might be reasonable to review the position after the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in May 2016?
Welfare reform has been blocked for almost four years by some parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Passing the Bill tonight will bring to an end an impasse, thus allowing the fresh start agreement to be implemented. This will allow the people of Northern Ireland to benefit from a welfare reform package that will meet their needs. I hope that we can all look forward to a peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland. I support the Bill and trust that other noble Lords will take the same view.
Lord Glentoran (Con)
My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to speak on Northern Ireland matters because, over the last few years, I have been so frustrated by the lack of action in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It does not appear to have achieved anything positive recently. The Stormont House agreement was, at the time, excellent for what it was. But in my opinion this agreement is far less good, and we should not pretend anything different.
I personally do not wish to see direct rule again. I was on the Front Benches during direct rule before and it was not much fun, I can tell you. Equally, A Fresh Start does not, I am afraid, answer any of the difficult questions facing the Assembly today. The constitution needs to be changed—in fact, it must be changed—by its own Assembly Members to allow a coalition between two and more parties to govern. An active form of opposition is very necessary to maintain pressure on the Executive and to ensure that A Fresh Start, as well as the previous agreements, is being adhered to and driven forwards.
In the agreement, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister said:
“We are profoundly aware that the leadership challenge is to build hope and confidence throughout our community so that we can all rise above narrow sectional interests to play a bigger part in creating a truly reconciled and regenerated community”.
That statement has been signed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and, my God, I wish them well. They go on to say that:
“The essence of this Agreement, the vision which must inspire our leadership, is our shared belief that the civic values of respect, mutuality, fairness and justice must take precedence over those narrow values that too often manifest in division”.
And have not we seen them for so long and so often? If this agreement is to work, this final comment is vital.
There are some failings in this new agreement, as have been mentioned a little already. First of all, as far as I can see, the disagreements over budget have not been solved. No reform there will suddenly allow the budget to be agreed to; I do not see it.
Dealing with the past is very important to the people of Northern Ireland. There are very many families out there which have lost loved ones and do not know where the bodies are, what happened to them and why. That must not stop the search for the past; that history must continue. When I was working with Owen Paterson when he was Secretary of State, one of the key things that we were trying to do quietly behind the scenes was to make it all happen.
Then we come to the cantankerous business of flags and parades. These things really get under people’s skin during the seasons when they appear, particularly in the summer. I see nothing in this agreement that is going to solve that. It says that a commission is going to be set up. We have had a Parades Commission for years. Why do we need another one? Nobody took any notice of it. It did not obey the rules or the laws. Let us not get carried away by this new agreement. What I am saying is, “So what’s new?”.
On continued paramilitary activity, Her Majesty’s Government are to provide £25 million over five years and, more importantly, £160 million over five years to support further the PSNI.
Earlier today I heard it said that the Northern Ireland economy was doing well, but in my part of the world it is not. Michelin has closed down its factories in Ballymena, withdrawing over the next three years. Gallaher tobacco is also pulling out. What is so great about our economy when two of our major employers are pulling out?
To counter that, perhaps, we are told in this agreement that, as of 2018, there will be a reduction in corporation tax. The major companies in Northern Ireland will be paying only 12.5% corporation tax, against 20% in the rest of the United Kingdom. That should help to entice new companies and new businesses into the Province.
Lastly, one of the most important matters is to improve the financial base of the economy. We have to create jobs for young people, and to ensure that the less well-off half of the population have available to them a much higher standard of education than they have today. Certainly in some areas, Northern Ireland’s education is the best in the world. Our grammar schools and universities are great, but many families do not reach those standards. Some are living in houses where there is third-generation unemployment, with parents and grandparents who have never been to school and cannot read or write. That still exists, and we have to get rid of it. Let us hope that we can actually move forward. I do not feel very excited by this agreement but I am prepared to support it.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, first, I wish the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr Robinson, very well in his retirement, which I hope will be long, and I thank him for the legacy that he has left to Northern Ireland. I also thank the Secretary of State very much for her patience—in Northern Ireland, you need patience on many issues—and I thank Charles Flanagan TD, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in Dublin. Those two people worked extremely hard to get to where we are on this agreement. I welcome the fact that we have the Bill before the House this evening.
This has been a challenging time for all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and especially for the people of Northern Ireland. After 10 weeks of talks, a way forward was agreed on many issues. It was not easy for some of the political parties in Northern Ireland to come to that agreement. However, as other noble Lords said, they failed to break the deadlock over the legacy issues and, of course, the past. One issue that continually comes up to knock the political process in Northern Ireland is the past. As some noble Lords have said, we have long memories in Northern Ireland.
The agreement secures sustainability, especially for the Northern Ireland budget. There is an urgency to this legislation: Northern Ireland continues to lose money back to the Treasury until this Bill is passed. It is £2 million a week, as my noble friend Lord Browne said, which is a huge drain on the resources of the Northern Ireland Executive. Over the last four years there have been attempts to resolve the welfare question, which has contributed to the political crisis in Northern Ireland, especially in the Executive’s finances. However, I believe that financial sustainability of the Executive is crucial for the success of devolved government in Northern Ireland, and that requires implementation of welfare reform. It certainly looked likely that this very issue would bring down devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland could not continue to lose money every week because it did not implement welfare changes.
As the Minister said, the Bill does not of course affect the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is very important that that is put on the record. The Assembly can still agree to pass welfare legislation. The Government here at Westminster can legislate for it as well. It is important that that is put on the record, too. I know that the noble Lord’s plan to ask Westminster to do what Stormont failed to do and pass a welfare reform Bill for Northern Ireland is controversial in Northern Ireland, and here as well, but time is running out for the Assembly. We cannot afford to waste any more time on this issue. The alternative was to allow devolution to fall, with possible direct rule from London. At one point I remember talking to people back home who said, even within the corridors of the Northern Ireland Assembly, that that was a very strong possibility. There was a serious worry that direct rule would be coming from London. The stalemate that existed had not only financial costs but a credibility cost for the institutions in Northern Ireland. Their credibility was totally and absolutely called into question.
As I said, the last few months in Northern Ireland have been very difficult but it is time to implement the agreement. The document A Fresh Start is a milestone in the history of Northern Ireland. We should not be too negative about what we have achieved in Northern Ireland over the last 20 to 25 years. All our politicians have travelled a huge journey. Some are still travelling that journey and we should give them the support that they need at this minute in time to implement this agreement.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly in the gap. I hoped fervently that this debate, which is important for the people of Northern Ireland, would be surrounded by the agreement of the leading parties in Northern Ireland on the contentious issue that has already been mentioned tonight: how we deal with the past. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, quite rightly reminded the House of the vital nature of this divisive issue. As one of your Lordships’ House who probably sees more than others in my day-to-day work the desperate plight of the victims who are the inheritors of this—the living examples of the legacy of the past—I am disappointed that it was not possible for us to approach this debate with news that there had been agreement on how to tackle this legacy.
As a co-chairman of the Consultative Group on the Past, who has struggled to get recognition for groups of victims and has had to listen to their complaints and grievances almost daily, I hope that the swift passing of this Bill and the increased amounts it will make available will make it possible for this legacy to be tackled at last. I say to the Minister that perhaps the situation is not as bleak as it seems. If, as is being suggested, the papers that were presented during the discussions leading up to the Stormont agreement were published, we might see a greater consensus between the parties as to how the legacy can be tackled. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to do what they can to encourage the publication of those papers, for I believe the victims and the people of Northern Ireland deserve nothing less. I wish this Bill well and I emphasise again that we cannot forgot the crying needs of the victims.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I am pleased that welfare reform in Northern Ireland is at last being addressed and is moving forward. However, I deeply regret that it is happening in Westminster rather than Stormont, where it should rightly be legislated for. Nevertheless, it will allow a log-jam created by the intransigence of Sinn Fein/IRA to be broken. It will, I hope, permit the Northern Ireland Executive to move forward and at last provide opportunities for that devolved Administration to begin to address bread-and-butter issues, which, for far too long, have not been properly addressed in Stormont. Those are issues such as how we attract more overseas investment, how we help home-grown businesses to develop and expand, how we rebalance our economy with a greater private sector and more manufacturing jobs, how we better educate our young people and thus create an even higher skilled workforce, and how we provide an improved health service and healthcare—and, in doing so, reduce the lamentable waiting list. These matters should be addressed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, as should the whole matter of welfare reform. Why has welfare reform been given back to the sovereign Parliament in Westminster to legislate for? Is it because Sinn Fein/IRA could not be seen to weaken their stance on austerity, or is it, as the Member for North Antrim stated in another place, that the Northern Ireland Assembly is dysfunctional, unworkable and incapable of making decisions? It is here that these matters are being discussed and I regret that we have to legislate for what should have been a devolved matter.
We are where we are but let it clearly be noted that, yes, the Northern Ireland citizens are getting a better and fairer welfare package than the rest of the citizens of Great Britain, but these extra benefits are not being funded by the United Kingdom Exchequer; they are coming out of the Northern Ireland block grant. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Ben Wallace, stated in another place, while,
“those flexibilities may turn out to suit the people of Northern Ireland … The UK Government will not fund on top of the existing UK roll-out”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/15; cols. 1104-05.]
It is clear that around £600 million will have to come out of the budgets of other Northern Ireland departments to finance this now-agreed welfare reform package. Who will bear this cost? Will it be, as I mentioned earlier, areas that desperately need improvement? Will it be education, the economy or health? It is regrettable that due to this rushed legislation these matters and other important issues could not be debated fully and clarified.
Much time and money have been wasted by the intransigence of Sinn Fein/IRA but I am glad that it has now done a complete U-turn and allowed this process to begin. I would much have preferred it if we could have achieved this in our own devolved Assembly, but that was not to be. So tonight let us collectively move forward and help all the people of Northern Ireland to have a fairer, better and, I hope, more prosperous and settled future.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the Minister, who has carried quite a heavy burden tonight. Quite a few of us have been here for the same length of time, but not carrying the same burden. He has stuck to his guns, sometimes even under pressure from the Privy Council Bench—on his own side, not from this side. I also pay tribute to all our colleagues from Northern Ireland who have spoken. To be here at this time of night shows their commitment to what they have been saying and to Northern Ireland, which is commendable and appreciated by all of us.
I will try to curtail my remarks out of—I will not admit to compassion; that would ruin my reputation—some consideration for our colleagues who have been here all night. We will not be opposing the Bill this evening. As I have said before, we fully support the need for this and the Government bringing it forward. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said quite rightly that it is not a new situation to be dealing with legislation such as this. We have been here before and we recognise the necessity of it.
It is important to acknowledge how difficult it has been in Northern Ireland over the past few months because it is in that context that we are debating this piece of legislation. It has appeared at times throughout the year, culminating in the past 11 weeks, that the talks were going nowhere. I understand the despair that people were feeling. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said, it is to the huge disappointment of all of us that collectively we have not managed to do anything about the legacy of the past. Notwithstanding that failure to come to a conclusion on how to deal with the past, the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, very generously mentioned all those involved in coming to this agreement, including the Irish Government and Members of Parliament, and that is also appreciated.
It has been said before that without an agreement there was the real risk of the collapse of devolution or indeed the return to direct rule, either of which would have been unthinkable. However, that has been avoided and that is why we believe that this agreement is significant and why we are lending our justified support to the Government. As part of the agreement, a consent Motion was agreed by the Northern Ireland Assembly to allow us to legislate for welfare reform at Westminster—a measure designed to ensure that the reform can take place as soon as possible without further financial penalties to allow stability to return and normal government arrangements to proceed.
It is never ideal when Parliament is asked to agree fast-tracked legislation—that has been made clear on all sides of the House—but it can be necessary. In this case in particular, expediting this legislation is the right thing to do. The agreement reached has also allowed other very significant measures, aside from welfare reform, to be adopted and other money released for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. This includes additional funding to the PSNI to combat the continuing terrorist threat; money and increased efforts to tackle paramilitarism and cross-border crime; and funds for community initiatives such as bringing down the peace walls.
The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to reform the welfare system. We still disagree with much of the present Government’s welfare reform and will continue to speak out against it. However, we accept that the agreement allows Northern Ireland certain welcome exemptions and the ability to mitigate the impact of these cuts. This certainly demonstrates that the Government’s welfare cuts, and indeed their austerity programme in general, are as much a problem for Northern Ireland as they are for any other part of the UK.
As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned, this agreement ensures stability and means the Northern Ireland budget can function properly, but of course we believe, as the noble Lord believes, that jobs, growth, prosperity et cetera represent a better way to manage the economy than cuts. Crucially, what is needed alongside any welfare reform is a focus on a programme for jobs and growth. The Government must now engage in rigorous work with the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland businesses to give such a programme greater urgency. Reforming welfare is about more than cutting benefits, it is about training, skills, opportunity, and tackling low aspiration and educational underachievement. That has to be recognised, and new programmes are needed.
I turn very briefly to the specifics of the Bill. If the Minister does not have the information to hand, I am more than happy to accept a letter. First, can he clarify the timetable and process for the Orders in Council which will follow this paving legislation? Secondly, what scope is there for consultation with respect to these orders? In the Assembly, the Minister for Social Development talked of agreement in principle to introduce the changes to the welfare system in Northern Ireland at Westminster. Does this mean amendment is possible? Thirdly, can the Minister detail which welfare parts of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill this legislative process actually covers? Finally, this legislation falls at the end of 2016—will the Minister confirm why this date was chosen?
We will not be opposing this legislation as we are of the view that the dangers of an agreement not being reached were huge, with potential restoration of direct rule. This has been averted. Northern Ireland political institutions are stabilised, notwithstanding the continuing debate, so let us ensure that the UK Government work with the Irish Government and all the parties and that we continue to support the building of not only a peaceful Northern Ireland but one of prosperity, fairness and opportunity for all.
It is appropriate to finish by echoing some of the tributes that have been paid to Peter Robinson for his service to Northern Ireland. I have mentioned previously that Peter and I were on the Northern Ireland Select Committee together, and we became and are good friends. He has travelled a long and at times rocky road, and became absolutely essential to the peace that we have in Northern Ireland at the moment.
Lord Dunlop
My Lords, I begin by thanking speakers from all sides of the House for their helpful, constructive and supportive contributions to this debate and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for his generous words. I echo what several noble Lords have said about Peter Robinson. It is always useful to hear views from across the spectrum and I shall try, in my closing remarks, to address as many of the points raised as I can.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, asked why we had not moved more quickly. The Government were keen not to absolve the Northern Ireland parties of the responsibility that devolution brings, and the Secretary of State was clear throughout that legislation in this Parliament was a last resort. We were also very mindful of the need, were we to legislate in this Parliament, to get legislative consent from the Assembly. The noble Lord also mentioned the issues around legacy. It is very regrettable that consensus on all aspects could not be reached. The Government have worked hard to build consensus with the Northern Ireland parties over many weeks of intensive discussion, and the Government remain committed to continuing to work to build consensus on legacy issues. That is very much for the reasons about which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, spoke so powerfully, with his focus on finding closure for victims. I was very much encouraged by his message of hope.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, also mentioned a body to monitor paramilitary activity. The establishment of a monitoring body to assess the impact of paramilitary activity on local communities is a crucial part of the final agreement between the Northern Ireland parties. The new body will measure the impact of paramilitary activity on local communities, as well as monitoring the delivery of the strategy to be developed by the Executive to bring an end to all paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland.
Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, asked on the review of the sunset date after the Assembly elections, the Government’s strong view is that it is essential that the sunset clause runs until 31 December 2016. An earlier end date would mean that the necessary structural changes to the Northern Ireland welfare system could not take place. In other words, there has to be sufficient time to undertake other reforms such as those provided for by the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. This was a point accepted in the agreement reached last week and confirmed by the legislative consent motion passed by the Assembly last Wednesday.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised a number of issues about the Fresh Start agreement and I very much agree with what he is saying about the future in Northern Ireland, which is really about getting a strong economy in Northern Ireland. He talked about the finances of the Northern Ireland Executive and said that securing the implementation of welfare reform legislation is absolutely critical to putting those finances on a more secure footing. It is not a free lunch and included in the Fresh Start agreement is enhancing the fiscal responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive through additional financial controls to limit the Executive’s potential to set unrealistic budgets in future. Key to that is a new, independent fiscal council for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hay, talked about the cost of not implementing welfare reform, and he was right to highlight that failure to implement welfare reform is costing the Executive around £2 million a week. That is the difference between what the Treasury is prepared to fund up to parity with Great Britain and the cost of continuing to run the old, unreformed welfare system. The Northern Ireland Executive estimates that the cost to their budget next year will rise to more than £200 million and to more than £500 million by the end of this Parliament. That is clearly unaffordable, and these figures do not even take into account the cost of IT.
In terms of some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, I am very happy to write to him. We have taken this broad power because, when the 2012 welfare reform measures were first introduced, Northern Ireland’s Department for Social Development agreed certain administrative flexibilities with the Department for Work and Pensions. These included, for example, a slightly different sanctions regime and the ability for welfare payments to be made to claimants on a fortnightly rather than a monthly basis. Clearly, as I have said already, we have chosen a date that makes it possible to implement other 2015 reforms that are still in train.
I hope that answers most of the points. If I have not answered all the points then I am of course very happy to write to the noble Lord.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until a time to be advertised on the annunciators. It may be helpful if I add that the House will adjourn for at least 10 minutes to allow Members to inform the Public Bill Office if they wish to table amendments. If there are no amendments, the House will resume in 10 minutes’ time to take the remaining stages of the Bill. If there are amendments, there will be a longer adjournment to allow the amendments to be tabled, printed and distributed.