House of Commons
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 9 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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
1. What recent steps the Crown Prosecution Service has taken to ensure that there is adequate support for vulnerable witnesses giving evidence in criminal proceedings.
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
In September last year the Crown Prosecution Service published guidance for advocates on better communication with all witnesses. Advocates receive mandatory training for cases involving vulnerable witnesses, and special measures for those witnesses are regularly used at court, including pre-recorded evidence, intermediaries, screens or the use of a video link.
Robert Jenrick
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in my experience as a former solicitor, witnesses, particularly the most vulnerable witnesses, want to be kept better informed of the process of their case, to hear updates in a timely fashion, to be able to give evidence as quickly as possible without losing their right to be heard, and to be treated in the least intimidating way possible within the court process?
The Attorney General
Indeed. It is important that we ensure that witnesses who are engaged in criminal trials, which will be difficult experiences for them at the best of times, understand what is happening in the case around them. I hope that my hon. Friend will be as encouraged as I am by the trials that have been run in three different Crown courts for pre-recorded cross-examination. That will enable vulnerable and young witnesses in particular to get their part in the trial out of the way and any further delays in that trial will not affect them. That is a huge step forward.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I remind the Attorney General that the Conservative party manifesto promised a victims law. We are quite some time now from the election. Will he enlighten the House as to when that will be forthcoming?
The Attorney General
The right hon. Gentleman will know that manifestos are for Parliaments, not just for the first year of Parliaments, so we have a little time left. When we do bring forward proposals I am sure he will be encouraged to see ways in which we can help victims understand better what is happening in the cases in which they are involved, and help them have a less difficult experience within the criminal justice system. Having held ministerial responsibility for the system, the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that we will never be able to get to a place where giving evidence and being involved in criminal trials is easy for victims and witnesses, but we can make it less hard and we will bring forward proposals to do so.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I welcome what the Attorney General has said about the new victims code. What discussions has he had with the CPS regarding implementation of that code by prosecutors?
The Attorney General
The Solicitor General and I have regular conversations with the CPS about how we make sure that what prosecutors do assists victims and witnesses. My hon. Friend will understand that it is a prosecutor’s responsibility to prosecute a case on behalf of the state, not solely on behalf of a victim, but it is none the less important that victims are spoken to regularly and sensitively by those who are involved in the prosecution.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
May I, through the Attorney General, thank the Government for deciding to reverse their decision to close Stockport courthouse, which has excellent facilities for victims and witnesses? Given that Her Majesty’s inspectorate has said that services to victims and witnesses require improvement, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman set out precisely what the Government will do to provide that?
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman will know that the court estate is not part of my responsibilities, but I congratulate him on the success of his representations. In relation to victims and witnesses, there are a number of things that need to be done. Some will come from the Ministry of Justice; some, as I have indicated, come from encouraging prosecutors to do their job of interacting with victims and witnesses in a more effective way. We are making progress on that. Better communication, as I said, is important. Better training for prosecutors in dealing with cases, particularly where vulnerable witnesses or children are involved, is important and we are doing that too. Some of the measures that we are taking, which I referred to earlier, in respect of ways in which victims give evidence can also help in ensuring that the experience is distressing as little as possible.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Judges and legal advisers play a crucial role in assisting vulnerable witnesses in court. Is the Attorney General aware of the profound distress and demoralisation among legal advisers about the increased pressure that they are under because of the imposition of continued legal aid cuts and the effect on courts?
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that legal aid is not part of my responsibilities, but I will say that in my experience—and, I am sure, in his—those who act in our courts on behalf of defendants and on behalf of the Crown do the very best they can to present the evidence clearly and give people the best possible experience of the trial process, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. He makes an important point that when it comes to the cross-examination of young or vulnerable witnesses, both advocates and the judiciary have a role in ensuring that it is conducted in the right way. I hope and expect that they will continue to play their part in doing so.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
2. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the potential effect of a British Bill of Rights on Scotland.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
8. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
10. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
The Government are considering the devolution implications of the Bill of Rights carefully. That will of course include engaging fully with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Callum McCaig
It emerged during an evidence session to the House of Lords Constitution Committee that the UK Supreme Court may be given a new role as a UK constitutional court. Given that the UK Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for Scottish civil cases and has a role in the devolution aspects of Scottish criminal cases, will the Attorney General commit to consulting with the Scottish Government before any such proposals are included in a consultation?
The Attorney General
If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Lord Chancellor’s evidence to that Committee, which I have read, he is not quite right; the Lord Chancellor was talking about the prospects for considering how the Supreme Court might fulfil a different role, and he was referring to the German example of how that is done. The hon. Gentleman will also know that no proposals have yet been brought forward; he will see them when they are. As I, the Lord Chancellor and others have said, we will ensure that there is proper consultation on any proposals.
Gavin Newlands
As the Attorney General will be aware, both the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights have independently commented on the undesirability of any overlap between the proposed consultation on the Bill of Rights and pre-election periods, including for the Scottish Parliament elections in May. What discussions has he had with the Justice Secretary regarding publication of the consultation?
The Attorney General
Again, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see the proposals when they are brought forward. On timing, he will know that the Cabinet Office has very clear guidelines on respect for purdah periods before elections, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is keen that all due regard is paid to them.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
The Attorney General might not be aware that the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights, Alex Neil MSP, recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice to express concern that he has not sought to discuss the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act with the Scottish Government. Given the wide implications of any repeal of the Act on Scotland, does the Attorney General agree that the Secretary of State for Justice must formally engage with the Scottish Government to discuss their concerns?
The Attorney General
The hon. Lady is right; I have not seen that letter. But I do know that Mr Neil, and indeed other Scottish Government Ministers, have had contact with UK Government Ministers to discuss these matters. I can reassure her that when the proposals are brought forward, there will be proper consultation with the devolved Administrations.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
The impending imposition of the British Bill of Rights could have the effect of curtailing the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg as well as the Court in Strasbourg. Is it not the case that that will require further renegotiation with our EU partners and, therefore, should it not have formed a crucial part of the recent so-called renegotiation?
The Attorney General
I am not sure that there is much appetite anywhere in Europe for re-opening those negotiations. The hon. Gentleman might find that there are proposals coming from this Government to make our relationship with the charter of fundamental rights clearer, based on protocol 30 of the treaties, which, as he will be aware, was negotiated by a previous Government. The protocol makes it clear that the charter does not extend rights in this country. We will bring forward further proposals on clarifying that, and again he will have a good opportunity to discuss them when he sees them.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
3. What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the compatibility of Government proposals on investigatory powers with EU law.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
I regularly meet ministerial colleagues to discuss important issues of common interest, including on EU law matters. I am unable to talk about any legal content of those discussions, because whether or not the Law Officers have given advice, by convention, is not disclosed outside Government.
Alan Brown
Recent judgments from the European Court of Human Rights, such as in Zakharov v. Russia, strongly suggest that the powers in the United Kingdom’s draft Investigatory Powers Bill could violate the European convention on human rights. What discussions has he had with his colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that powers provided for in the Bill are compatible with the convention?
The Solicitor General
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the most recent case in the Court of Appeal, in November last year, the provisional view was that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 was not inconsistent with EU law. A reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Union. I will not comment on that particular case, but I can assure him that when it comes to issues of compatibility, anxious consideration is always given to ensure that legislation here is in accord with the rule of law.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
In an unsafe world, we need to keep the United Kingdom, and indeed our European partners, safe. With the security charter for the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, how will the Government get the balance right between civil liberties on the one hand and national security on the other?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend asks probably the most important question about that balance. I can reassure him that the draft Bill, and indeed the legislation that will come forward shortly, strikes that balance, most notably in involving judicial authorisation for the granting of warrants. That double-lock process, which involves the Secretary of State and the judiciary, strikes the right balance.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
The case involving the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), which the Solicitor General has referred to, and which is before the Court of Appeal, but with a reference to the European Court of Justice, could have implications for the draft Investigatory Powers Bill. The case is being heard in April. How does the Solicitor General see that impacting on the timetable for the Bill going through this House?
The Solicitor General
While we understand that the case will be heard in April, it is still very much an unknown factor as to when a judgment will come. What I can say is that the outcome of any case will, of course, be carefully considered. However, I do not anticipate that causing a delay to the introduction of that important Bill, bearing in mind the sunset provisions in DRIPA.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
4. What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the UK’s domestic and international human rights obligations.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
7. What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the UK’s domestic and international human rights obligations.
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer Question 4 alongside Questions 7 and 9. I regularly meet ministerial colleagues to discuss important issues of common interest, including on domestic and international human rights law. As the House knows, not least because the Solicitor General has said this once already today, I am not able to talk about any legal content of those discussions, because, by convention, whether the Law Officers have given advice or not is not disclosed outside Government.
Mr Speaker
Order. Question 9 has just been withdrawn, although the Attorney General was not to know that, and I thank him for announcing the grouping.
The Attorney General
I have no plans to repeal any of them. As the hon. Gentleman may have heard me say in this place before, I do not think any of us has any serious argument with the content of the European convention on human rights, which is an admirable document. The difficulty we have is with the interpretation of that document by the European Court of Human Rights. This is not a matter of repealing rights; it is a matter of bringing some common sense back into the ambit of human rights law, and the Government are committed to doing that.
The Attorney General
I do not think that is the position at all. The Lord Chancellor will continue to do the excellent job he is doing of running the justice system. He will be able to ask for advice from his equally excellent Government lawyers.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Part of the UK’s human rights obligations is to ensure that minority communities are not subjected to harassment and distress. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that allegations of rabid anti-Semitic behaviour from the Oxford University Labour club are a disgrace to Oxford and no doubt an embarrassment to the Labour party, and that they should be dealt with robustly by the University, if not by other authorities?
The Attorney General
I agree with my hon. Friend: these are very troubling allegations, and I hope they are dealt with swiftly and effectively. However, he makes the important point that all of us, on both sides of the House, believe in the protection of human rights and in rules and laws that allow that protection to happen. What we are not in favour of is the perversion of human rights law by the introduction of silly cases that should not be before the courts at all. That obscures the important work my hon. Friend is referring to.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Under the Lisbon treaty, the European Union has a treaty obligation to join the European convention on human rights. However, the European Court of Justice has said that that would be incompatible with EU law. Does that not demonstrate that the European Court of Justice is, indeed, supreme?
The Attorney General
I am sure you, Mr Speaker, were as worried as I was that this session was going to pass without mention of the European Union, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that matter right. As he knows, the decision on whether the European Union accedes to the convention on human rights is for the European Union, and it is therefore not unnatural that the Court of Justice of the European Union should express its opinion. All member states, and indeed the institutions of the European Union, now need to consider carefully what action they take next, and I am sure that is what they will do.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
I am sure the Attorney General will recall that the Attorney General played an important role during the Iraq war, and that it continued right up until the various inquiries, including the Chilcot inquiry. I think he ought to declare now, in order to get rid of any doubts, whose side he is on—the Justice Minister or the Prime Minister. It is a fairly easy question: which side is it?
The Attorney General
I am on the Government’s side; I think I made my position quite clear yesterday. In relation to the role of the Attorney General in inquiries, the hon. Gentleman is of course right that the Attorney General, and the Law Officers more broadly, have an important part to play in ensuring that the Government actions stay within the law, domestic and international, and previous and current Law Officers take that responsibility very seriously.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Yesterday, Amnesty International published its annual report, which rightly criticises the Government’s plan to scrap Labour’s excellent Human Rights Act. Amnesty’s UK director, Kate Allen, commented that the behaviour of the UK towards China, Saudi Arabia and Egypt shows that the Government have lost their passion to promote human rights. Does not the Government kow-towing to countries like China and Saudi Arabia, without challenging their dodgy human rights records, and the Prime Minister’s phoney plan to water down the Human Rights Act, send the wrong message to dictators and rogue states?
The Attorney General
No. The position is this: Government Members, I am sure in common with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, will continue passionately to advocate the case for the protection of human rights both in this country and abroad. He is quite wrong to say that this Government, in common with their predecessors, do not challenge other states that have a doubtful human rights record—we continue to do that.
In relation to the Amnesty International report, I have a huge amount of respect for what Amnesty International does, but in this report it has, in my view, overstated its case just a little. It is not the case, as I have said before and as the hon. Gentleman knows, that human rights and the Human Rights Act are the same thing. It is possible to protect human rights without the Human Rights Act—in fact better to do so—and that is what this Government intend to do.
Mr Speaker
Can we please speed up? I want to get to the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who is the last questioner, and progress is frankly too slow.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
5. What steps the Government have taken to improve the conviction rate for rape and serious sexual offences.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The CPS has undertaken a considerable amount of work to place priority on the improvement of rape prosecutions.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Solicitor General for his admirably brief reply. He will know that despite claims of the highest number of convictions ever, convictions for rape, domestic abuse and other sexual offences have fallen. I work closely with Sheffield Rape Crisis, which tells me that there is a real postcode lottery in support for victims, and if victims are not supported they are less likely to come forward. What discussions has the Solicitor General had with the Home Secretary to ensure adequate funding for sexual violence advisers?
The Solicitor General
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I work regularly with colleagues in the Home Office to look at a wide range of measures that need to be put in place to give support to victims of sexual offences. I remind him that in terms of absolute volumes, conviction rates continue to rise and are the highest ever. I assure him that the CPS has now engaged 102 specialist prosecutors in its RASO—rape and sexual offences—units to place proper priority on the swift and effective prosecution of these serious cases.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
In our enthusiasm to get convictions where they are deserved, can the Solicitor General make sure in his discussions with the Home Office that other parts of the system, particularly the police, do not lose their commitment to justice, and that, while they must owe a proper duty to the complainant, they should not simply ignore potential exculpatory evidence in their investigations?
The Solicitor General
I reiterate that the police should follow the evidence wherever it leads. There should be no presumptions of truth or otherwise and they should objectively and fairly investigate cases before presenting them to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Is the Solicitor General aware that Scotland’s conviction rate for rape and sexual offences has increased significantly over the past few years as a result of setting up a centralised national sexual crimes unit in Edinburgh, in which the specialist prosecutors oversee the prosecution of all sexual crime across Scotland? I am sure that Scotland’s Law Officers would be very happy if England’s Law Officers wanted to visit and learn more about it.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for raising that matter. The scale involved in England and Wales is slightly bigger, so they have taken the regional unit approach, but I entirely agree with her about the need to standardise practice. The Attorney General and I are always very conscious of that in our conversations with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief executive of the Crown Prosecution Service, and work is being done to improve that standardisation.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
In the latest thematic review of rape and serious sexual offence units, the CPS inspector found that the care given to victims of rape and sexual assault
“fell well short of what is expected”.
Is the Solicitor General concerned by Kevin McGinty’s findings that in some areas the CPS has stopped giving early investigative advice to the police because resources are overstretched?
The Solicitor General
I remind the hon. Lady that that report related to a particular period from a year to 18 months ago, and since then the CPS has taken huge strides both in increasing the number of prosecutors and in improving the methods by which cases are assessed and managed.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
6. How many times the Law Officers referred a criminal sentence to the Court of Appeal for review on the grounds that it was unduly lenient in the last year.
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
In the calendar year to 31 December 2015, the Law Officers considered 467 sentences and referred 150 offenders to the Court of Appeal.
Rebecca Harris
Can the Attorney General confirm that he is fulfilling our manifesto commitment to review the unduly lenient sentences scheme, and will he comment specifically on whether that review will take into account family courts, where it is currently at the discretion of the presiding judge whether to refer up sentences of serious cases of sexual crimes and rape?
The Attorney General
The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question is yes, we will fulfil that commitment and, as she knows, we are looking carefully at how best to do so. I will also consider what she has said in relation to matters considered by the youth courts. There are difficulties with including all youth court cases, but we will consider carefully what she has said and see whether there is a way of accommodating it.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
11. What steps he plans to take to improve the level of public understanding of the legal framework applicable to social media.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
There is clearly some awareness of the legal framework applicable to social media, but I publish warnings online reminding people of their responsibilities wherever appropriate. My office also sends tweets warning social media users of the risk of being in contempt, where a particular problem has been identified. I assure my hon. Friend that I am always looking at ways of raising awareness in this area.
Jack Lopresti
Can my hon. and learned Friend explain what steps are being taken to prevent media coverage of ongoing cases?
The Solicitor General
The media quite properly play a role in reporting cases, but any lack of responsibility allows my office and, indeed, criminal law to intervene, particularly in respect of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Detailed guidelines on the prosecution of such cases are available on the CPS website.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
1. What steps the Government are taking to tackle race inequality.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
12. What steps the Government are taking to tackle race inequality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
The Prime Minister has set out challenging Government targets to increase black, Asian and minority ethnic opportunities by 2020, including take-up of apprenticeships, employment and recruitment to the police and armed services.
Steven Paterson
The Scottish Government have launched a programme entitled, “New Scots: Integrating Refugees in Scottish Communities”, in order to ensure that refugees have every opportunity and support to rebuild their lives in Scotland. What similar initiatives are the UK Government taking to support refugees and fight racism?
Mr Jones
The Under-Secretary of State for Refugees, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who works across the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office, is working extremely hard to support refugees in a way similar to the programme that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Roger Mullin
Research suggests that people with ethnic-sounding names have to make twice as many job applications as do white Britons to get job interviews. Will the Minister therefore discuss with the Business Secretary and others how to strengthen guidance to companies on their recruitment practices?
Mr Jones
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made a significant commitment in that area. Many of the country’s top employers, including the civil service, are committing to name blind recruitment processes, and UCAS will be making university applications name blind from 2017.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Government on introducing name blind recruitment in the civil service, the NHS, and other large graduate employers. Will he join me in encouraging other large companies across the UK to follow suit?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should certainly encourage companies across the country—not just FTSE 100 companies, which seem to be making significant efforts, but companies large and small—to look at diversity and how they can use it to improve their business.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
People from black and minority ethnic backgrounds make up 26% of apprenticeship applications but only 9.6% of the apprenticeships that are taken up. What is the Minister doing to improve those disappointing statistics?
Mr Jones
Apprenticeships are an extremely important part of the Government’s agenda. We have a target of 3 million apprenticeship starts during this Parliament. Within that, the Prime Minister has clearly set out the Government’s commitment to ensure that 20% of those apprenticeship starts are for BME young people, which I think is a great step forward.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
3. What steps the Government are taking to increase the number of BME young people receiving a university education.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
The Prime Minister, as we have just heard in respect of apprenticeships, has set a goal of increasing by 20% the number of BME students in higher education. In our new guidelines to the director of fair access, which we published on 11 February, we ask him to maximise the contribution of access agreements towards that ambition. The share of BME enrolments at the United Kingdom’s institutions has already risen by just over 20% to 23% between 2009 and 2015. Expenditure to widen access through agreements is expected to reach £746 million in 2016-17, up from £444 million in 2011.
Matthew Pennycook
Many gifted BME young people in my constituency and across the country who have lived here all their lives and are lawfully and legally resident in the UK, and who have made their way through the UK education system, are effectively prohibited from accessing the student finance support that would allow them to progress to higher education because they do not have settled immigration status. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the Government introduce new eligibility criteria as a matter of urgency, to ensure that all our young people have the opportunity to make the most of their talents this academic year?
Anna Soubry
The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a very good point, which I am more than happy to discuss with the Home Office. I see that one of the relevant Ministers is already here, and we will have those conversations.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister has said about the figures for university applications. Does she agree that we must not take our eye off the ball when it comes to other routes, and that we must also encourage BME students to take courses such as apprenticeships and ensure that they have equal status in those routes?
Anna Soubry
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In the city of Nottingham, I have also seen the great success of mentors and the hugely important role that they can play not only for BME youngsters but for women. Mentors do excellent work, and there is good evidence of their importance. I encourage all Members of this place to go out and make sure that in our schools everything possible is being done to make sure that there is fairness and equality.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Research shows that while BME students are over-represented in university entrance figures, they tend to go to the new, post-92 universities. The Women and Equalities Committee heard this week that the Russell Group universities are poor at doing outreach to encourage students from disadvantaged and BME backgrounds to apply to their universities compared with the Ivy League universities in the US, which have a far better record on that. Will the Minister join me in seeking to address this issue?
Anna Soubry
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, if I may say so. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities, who makes the point that the London Academy of Excellence is a very good example. I must say that my nearest university, the University of Nottingham is—like Nottingham Trent University and many other universities—making a really positive effort to get into all our schools to make sure that all our pupils have every opportunity and that they, if I may put it this way, aim high.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government talk the talk of encouraging more black and minority ethnic students into university; yet, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, their recent decision to scrap maintenance grants will disproportionately affect those very same students. Does the Minister believe that this disproportionate impact is acceptable?
Anna Soubry
I am not familiar with the impact assessment, but I have to say that I am quite surprised by it. I reiterate the point: it is absolutely imperative that we make it very clear that everybody should aim high. That is what we want to do and that is what we are seeking to do.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
4. What steps she is taking to tackle gender economic inequality.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
The employment for women is at a record high, and the gender pay gap is at a record low. The Government are committed to enabling women and men to fulfil their economic potential.
Susan Elan Jones
That all sounds very nice, but with women being over-represented in sectors in which low pay is prominent and persistent, what is the Government’s strategy for tackling extended occupational segregation?
Harriett Baldwin
I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that 65% of the people who will benefit from the new national living wage in a couple of months will be women. This Government are taking that very important step to raise pay for the lowest-paid in our country.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I do not doubt my hon. Friend’s commitment to reducing the gender pay gap further, and I commend the Prime Minister for his position, but the reality is that women in my constituency of Basingstoke face a gender pay gap of 30%. Should this not be on the agenda of every single company throughout the country, as well as on that of our local enterprise partnerships?
Harriett Baldwin
As my right hon. Friend will be aware, given her interest in this matter, not only are we taking steps to publish this information for companies with more than 250 people on the payroll, but for financial services—the sector I, as Economic Secretary, engage with most—which has the highest pay and the biggest pay gap, we have appointed Jayne-Anne Gadhia to review pay in the sector and see what further steps we can take. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last July:
“Transparency, skills, representation, affordable childcare—these things can end the gender pay gap in a generation.”
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—campaigners are not going away, so will the Minister raise the issue of better transitional state pension arrangements with her Department for Work and Pensions counterpart? These women deserve fair play.
Harriett Baldwin
As a woman whose state pension age has gone up by six years during her working lifetime, I welcome the changes that will equalise the state pension age for men and women. That will end the discrimination of women in their late 50s, which has prevented far too many of them from reaching higher-paid roles in our society.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
What are the Government doing to reduce the economic inequality caused by gender differences in life expectancy?
Harriett Baldwin
We are putting more money into the NHS to ensure that everyone benefits from the good healthcare that has resulted in one of the remarkable features of our age—the fact that people of both genders are living much longer, which we should welcome.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Women’s under-participation in the labour market costs the UK economy £600 billion in lost productivity, according to the Government’s own analysis. Will the Minister guarantee that the forthcoming Budget will reverse the universal credit cuts that reduce work incentives and guarantee a childcare place to every working mum who needs one, and will she ask her colleague the Chancellor finally to change course and stop introducing a series of measures that disproportionately penalise women?
Harriett Baldwin
I am afraid that the hon. Lady, who is my twin, is completely wrong on this. The facts are that we are extending the free childcare offer to many people and bringing in tax-free childcare for many, many people. I share her aspiration to unleash the economic potential of women in our economy. The OECD has said that if the participation rates of men and women were equalised, the economy would be 10% larger. We are therefore taking a range of steps to encourage that to happen.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I welcome the draft gender pay gap reporting regulations that the Government published last week. Although I understand why the Government would not want to bring in enforcement procedures for non-compliance, will the Minister assure the House that the matter will be kept under constant review? Does she agree that it would be counter-productive for companies not to comply with the new regulations, as it would deter the most talented women from applying for their jobs?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I welcome his support for the initiative. It is a voluntary scheme. We are trying to change the culture, and transparency is part of that. It will allow women to make a choice. If they are thinking of working for a company, they will be able to ask, “Am I able to see how this company treats men and women?” And at a time of record employment for women in this country, women have more choices.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
5. What steps the Government are taking to secure long-term funding for domestic violence services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
The Government have already announced £40 million of funding for domestic abuse services between 2016 and 2020, as well as a £2 million grant to Women’s Aid and SafeLives to support early intervention. We will shortly publish a refreshed cross-governmental violence against women and girls strategy, which will set out how we will do more still to secure long-term funding for domestic violence services and support for all victims.
Keir Starmer
I return to the question of long-term funding for domestic violence services, which is so important, having raised it in January, when the Minister said she was holding discussions with service providers. How are those discussions progressing, and when will we see an outcome? Can we know at some stage, if not now, who is involved in those discussions?
Karen Bradley
I should make it clear that central Government funding for domestic abuse services has not been cut. I want to make that clear so that there is no confusion. The issue is about locally commissioned services. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that I have been having discussions with local commissioners and service providers, and I will issue the refreshed VAWG strategy shortly.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister said in January 2014 that he would ratify the Istanbul convention as soon as the UK banned forced marriages. The relevant legislation came into force in June 2014. Will the Minister explain what is now delaying the process?
Karen Bradley
There is an issue with article 44 of the Istanbul convention, which is about extraterritoriality. It is an issue regarding the devolved Administrations, of which there is more than one, as the hon. Lady will be aware. When we have clarified that point and passed the relevant primary legislation, we will ratify the Istanbul convention.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
6. What assessment she has made of the effect on gender equality of the Government’s welfare reforms.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
The Government set out their assessment of the impacts of the policies in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill on 20 July. Every Government policy change is carefully considered, in line with the legal obligations.
Chris Law
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that working lone parents with assets or unearned income are more likely to lose out under universal credit. With single parents overwhelmingly being female, it appears to me that the Government’s austerity programme is once again targeting women. What representations has the Minister made to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the impact of universal credit on women’s equality?
Priti Patel
I come back to my opening comment: we fully assessed the impact of the Bill’s equality measures, and we are meeting our wider obligations. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, universal credit supports people in employment, and that applies equally to women. That is alongside all the additional measures that we are now implementing, such as the national living wage, increased childcare and tax-free childcare.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
18. The Minister will be aware that women’s aid groups have expressed serious concerns that changes to housing benefit could force the closure of many refuges. Will she challenge her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to exempt refuges from those changes, to protect vulnerable women and children who are fleeing domestic violence?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady will know that there are measures in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, and they are in conjunction with the many discussions that we have with stakeholders, and we take on board all considerations. That is exactly what the Department will do in its dialogue with third-party organisations.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
7. What recent meetings she has had with women who have been affected by changes to the retirement age; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
We all know that women are affected by changes to the retirement age, and Ministers and their officials have met and corresponded with hundreds of women about pensions reform. The changes have been subject to many recent parliamentary debates, and the Government’s position has been made clear.
Fiona Mactaggart
Indeed the Government’s position has been made clear, and they are cloth-eared in listening to women who are affected by these pension changes. If the Minister had been present yesterday in the debate on providing transitional protection for women affected by the pensions changes, she would have heard Conservative Members—indeed, Members from every party in the House—cite individual women who have been degraded and impoverished by these changes. When will the Government begin to listen to them?
Priti Patel
I did listen to that debate, while I was also in another debate in Westminster Hall. Let us be clear: the Government have listened to extensive concerns that have been raised in the House, and concessions worth more than £1 billion were introduced to lessen the impact of the changes for those worst affected. The previous Government introduced future changes to the state pension age for women and men, following extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament. Importantly, the Government have made difficult but necessary decisions when it comes to speeding up the timetable for the equalisation of the pension age.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Women born in 1953 and 1954 are particularly badly affected by these changes. Many of them went into work at the age of 15, and will have to work more than 50 years before they can access their pension. Will the Government have another look at this? There are things that can be done if the political will is there.
Priti Patel
The Government have listened extensively to the concerns raised, and they have also worked with pensions organisations. To reiterate, the Government have made concessions of £1 billion, which have been introduced to lessen the impact of the changes on those affected.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
8. What steps she is taking to improve the pay for and quality of apprenticeships for women.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
The apprentice national minimum wage applies equally to all apprentices, and from October last year that rate was increased by 21% to £3.30 per hour. We continue to focus on improving the quality of all apprenticeships, and we are putting that into statute. We all go into schools, and one great thing we can do is not only to act as role models, especially if we are female, but to sing out about things such as the apprenticeship scheme, and make clear that it is not confined to boys.
Naz Shah
I thank the Minister for her response, but the reality is very different to what is on paper. Results from ComRes commissioned by the Young Women’s Trust in September found that female apprentices earn £4.82 per hour, compared with £5.85 for men. Another survey stated that there is an £8,400 difference in those areas of work where women figure highly, such as social care, childcare and hairdressing, in comparison with men, so actually, it is not correct.
Anna Soubry
I am not quite sure what is not correct, but, in any event, I know what the minimum wage is and it is for all apprentices. If there is evidence that women doing apprenticeships are being in some way discriminated against in their pay, we want to know about it, and we look forward to the hon. Lady coming forward, meeting the Minister for Women and Equalities, and between us we will sort it out.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Will the Minister assure me that older women are getting a fair deal when it comes to apprenticeships, and especially that they are able to return to work after caring responsibilities? Will she look carefully at the engineering and construction sectors to ensure that they are truly open to all?
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. When it comes to those sectors, the Minister for Women and Equalities and I—in fact, all of us—are extremely keen to make sure that we use every opportunity and anything available to us to make the case that younger women in particular must go into these excellent work streams. We know we need to do more. We all have a part to play and that, of course, includes Government.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Given that the apprenticeship gender pay gap for women stands at about £2,000 a year, does the Minister share my concerns that this is where the gender pay gap begins? Will she explain why the Government’s new institute for apprenticeships does not include provision or targets for women? What message does she think that sends to women seeking apprenticeships?
Anna Soubry
The institute, with which I am familiar, will comprise all the sorts of people it should have on it—primarily employers, but it will look to work with providers—to make absolutely sure not only that the quality of apprenticeships is good, but that we get everybody and anybody applying for apprenticeships. Whatever someone’s background might be—sex, colour of skin or ethnicity—absolutely does not matter at all. In certain areas, I do not have a problem at all in making a positive case to make sure that more women or more people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds go into apprenticeships, especially the high-quality ones. There should be no barrier.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
9. What steps the Government are taking to support older women with caring responsibilities; and if she will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)
Unpaid carers are the backbone of our society. That is why the Care Act 2014 gave carers new rights that focus on their wellbeing and give them properly targeted support. We have also invested £1.6 million in a series of pilots to look at the best ways to support those who have caring responsibilities.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I have been visiting care homes and care companies in my constituency that are currently facing unprecedented challenges. Does the Minister agree that this places an even greater onus on older carers, who do invaluable and compassionate work? What measures will she put in place to help older carers get back into employment when their care duties come to an end?
Caroline Dinenage
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Unpaid carers are the unsung heroes of our economy. The value of informal care is about £62 billion a year. For many carers it is literally a labour of love, which is why we have extended the right to request flexible working. A pilot project is considering the best way to support carers, through investment in technology and professional support, to stay in employment.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
A constituent visited my surgery last week to seek help. She had planned to retire and care for her elderly mother, but she now finds, unexpectedly, that her retirement date will be significantly later than planned. Does the Minister understand the wide implications of the issue raised by the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign and the real difficulties that problems with notification of pension date changes are causing for 1950s-born women with caring responsibilities?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I understand the concerns, but she must remember that the new state pension will give 650,000 women an average increase of £416 a year on their pension and, in addition, support those who take time out of employment, for example for caring roles, by crediting this very important work.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
10. What steps the Government are taking to support women in setting up their own businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)
We are absolutely committed to supporting women to start and grow their own businesses. I am really proud that Britain has been named the best place in Europe for female entrepreneurs. Our £1 million women and broadband programme enables them to take advantage of technology to start or grow their own business. We are running nationwide “meet and mentor” sessions to help give female entrepreneurs access to the right support and encouragement.
David Rutley
Self-employment is at record levels. Since 2009, women have accounted for more than 50% of that increase. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming Julie Deane’s new review into self-employment, and will she work with colleagues to take forward recommendations that will help more women to set up businesses successfully and to thrive?
Caroline Dinenage
Julie Deane is an incredibly inspiring example of the great female entrepreneurs we have here in the UK, and about a million of our small and medium-sized enterprises are indeed led by women, contributing an incredible £85 billion to the British economy. Julie has made some wide-ranging recommendations as part of her review into self-employment. I know that my hon. Friend has been involved in those recommendations, and they will be considered very carefully by the Government.
Mr Speaker
I ask the Minister to face the House. I understand that her questioner is behind her, but she should face the House.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
More generally for women who choose a career in business, I understand that Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have recently appointed Sir Philip Hampton to lead a review into increasing the number of women in UK boardrooms. I just wondered why the Minister thought that appointing that man was the right thing to do for this particular job.
Caroline Dinenage
I think we have to get away from the supposition that this is just a women’s problem. The fact that women are not as fully engaged as they should be on boards or indeed all the way through the business pipeline is a problem for everybody, and all businesses need to address this issue. That is why we need excellent people to lead this investigation, ensuring that it is all done as properly and fully as possible.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
11. What steps the Government are taking to reduce homophobic bullying of young people.
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Nicky Morgan)
Whether online or offline, all forms of bullying, including homophobic bullying, are completely unacceptable. That is why we are investing £2 million to support schools to address homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying more effectively. In fact, my Department is funding Stonewall’s Train the Trainers project in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, at the Great Clacton Church of England School, to build skills and confidence to address this form of bullying.
Mr Carswell
On which note, does the right hon. Lady agree that Stonewall’s Education Champions programme offers an excellent model for local authorities, academies and free schools to follow?
Nicky Morgan
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman saw sight of my answer, because I think we can firmly agree on that. I mentioned the £2 million project that we are funding. Stonewall is very much one of the bodies delivering on this, as are the Anne Frank Trust, Barnardo’s, Diversity Role Models, EACH—Educational Action Challenging Homophobia—Educate and Celebrate, the National Children’s Bureau and Show Racism the Red Card. They are all doing an excellent job.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
13. What steps she is taking to reduce the gender pay gap.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)
We are committed to closing the gender pay gap within a generation. This is important not only for women, but for business, prosperity and the health of the UK economy. That is why from next April we are requiring large employers to publish their gender pay gap, and why we have been working very closely with business to help deliver this.
Callum McCaig
I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome the steps that are being made, but will she join me in commending the Scottish Government for laying regulations in Holyrood to extend the requirement on public authorities with more than 20 employees to publish information on their gender pay gap and equal pay statements?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, we are always keen to take on board any information we can gather from anywhere that tackles the gender pay gap. We are consulting on the issue and we will shortly announce what we intend to do in respect of the public sector.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
As the father of a growing number of daughters, it is important to me that women can enjoy exactly the same level of career advancement as men, which they clearly do not. Many experts and leading female CEOs of international companies believe that the lead indicator is not the gender pay gap, but the level of career advancement for women. Will the Government consider looking in future into whether major companies could report the percentage of men and women at every stage within their organisation to help change the culture?
Caroline Dinenage
This legislation will require businesses to show how many people are employed at the different sectors of their organisations. However, my hon. Friend is right that this starts right from the beginning when girls are given careers advice about which businesses and sectors they should aim to get into. We need to get away from the idea that there are “girls’ jobs” and “boys’ jobs.” There are just “jobs.”
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I have recently put a series of parliamentary questions to every Government Department on the gender pay gap, and every Government Department that has answered to date has shown that there is a gender pay gap. What is the Minister going to do about the situation on her own watch?
Caroline Dinenage
Public sector employers will also be required to publish their gender pay gap statistics. It is a subject that we take very seriously. Nobody will be left unaffected by the legislation.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
I wonder whether this legislation will be broad enough to help a constituent of mine who recently separated from her boyfriend. She now has a “To Let” sign outside her house at 102 Church Drive, Shirebrook because she works for Mike Ashley at Sports Direct on a zero-hours contract. I think that is disgraceful, and I would like to see legislation that ensures that employers who operate zero-hours contracts cannot put women such as my constituent in jeopardy so that they lose the roof over their heads.
Caroline Dinenage
Unlike the last Labour Government, we have taken steps to address the issue of zero-hours contracts, and those who apply them will be included in the legislation.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
14. What steps the Government are taking to encourage more girls to take science, technology, engineering and mathematics at A-level.
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Nicky Morgan)
The number of science and maths A-level entries among girls has increased by 12,000 in the last five years, but the Government are determined to encourage even more girls to study those subjects to help them to secure rewarding jobs in the future. I recently announced that, by 2020, we want to see a 20% increase in the number of girls applying to study science and maths. To achieve that, we will build on an extensive range of Government-funded support for schools.
Andrea Jenkyns
There are some fantastic STEM schools in my constituency, including Outwood Grange Academy, where I attended a brilliant STEM skills workshop a couple of weeks ago, and Woodkirk Academy, which I visited with the Minister for Women and Equalities last year. Will she join me in praising those schools, which are helping more pupils to consider STEM careers by finding imaginative ways to show them the possibilities that those subjects hold? Pupils have even participated in a LEGO minecraft workshop at Woodkirk.
Nicky Morgan
I welcome the opportunity to join my hon. Friend in praising the work of Outwood Grange and Woodkirk Academies for their excellent work in this regard. During my visits I was impressed to see at first hand how the academies engage pupils in STEM subjects, demonstrating the application of science and maths and promoting STEM careers.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House agrees that STEM subjects provide exciting, rewarding, fantastic career opportunities for women and girls, but studies show that without some personal experience of STEM careers, girls are unlikely to consider them fully. Why have the Government abolished face-to-face careers advice and made work experience something that girls have to organise for themselves? Will the Secretary of State bring back mandatory work experience?
Nicky Morgan
Actually, we are going to go much further. We have introduced, and are funding, the Careers & Enterprise Company. We shall be investing more than £70 million in careers work during the current Parliament to enable young men and women to be inspired by people who visit schools, by work experience opportunities, by finding out more, and by the Your Daughter’s Future programme. We discussed the gender pay gap earlier. I think it worth noting that those working in careers in science or technology are paid, on average, 19% more than those in other professions, and I think we can all agree that we want more girls to go into such careers.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
15. What steps the Government are taking to help parents find affordable childcare.
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Nicky Morgan)
The Government will have invested an extra £1 billion per annum by 2019-20 to help hard-working families with the cost of childcare. We are doubling the amount of free childcare to 30 hours for working parents of three and four-year-olds, and from early 2017 tax-free childcare will benefit about 2 million families by up to £2,000 per child. Many families will also be able to claim 85% of childcare costs through universal credit.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the Minister for that, and especially for the extra £13 million that is being made available to councils such as mine in Staffordshire so that they can roll out the childcare plan sooner. That will help thousands of hard-working families throughout the country. However, will she give particular consideration to what can be done to help families with disabled children and children with special needs?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we are investing more in childcare. Those with disabled children receive £4,000 of tax-free childcare per child. During the last and current Parliaments, we have been rolling out education and healthcare plans for children, including those aged nought to 25 who have more complex needs. We are clear about the fact that our childcare policies must require providers to cater properly for children with disabilities.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
17. What progress the Government are making in negotiating the removal of VAT on women’s sanitary products.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has written to the European Commission and to other member states setting out our strong view that member states should have full discretion in regard to the rate of VAT that they can apply to these products, and that that should be considered in the context of the Commission’s action plan on VAT, which we expect to be published in March.
Paula Sherriff
Frankly, I think that many women throughout the country will be rather disappointed by the Minister’s response. Will she guarantee that the Prime Minister or the Chancellor will come to the House and make a statement once the Commission has responded to our request, so that the public know where we stand before the referendum?
Harriett Baldwin
Of course, the Government do believe that this is something on which we want to take action. I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that the Chancellor has already announced a new £15 million annual fund to support women’s charities in the interim period before we can tackle this on a unanimous basis across Europe.
EU Solidarity Fund: Flooding
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement about assistance from the EU solidarity fund for flood-hit communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)
First, I want to pay tribute to all those who have supported the many places that were flooded in December and early January; the local authorities, the emergency services, the Environment Agency staff, the community volunteers, the military and many others made a significant contribution to supporting communities affected by the terrible events that we saw over Christmas, in December and in early January. The whole House will want to recognise the enormous effort that has gone into supporting households and businesses, not just the initial response to the floods, but the ongoing work to get residents back into homes and businesses open.
The responsibility for recovery, including matters relating to the European Union solidarity fund, lies with the Department for Communities and Local Government, and officials in DCLG worked hard throughout that period and continue to work hard to support those communities and those affected by those events. The Government recognise that the immediate priority is to respond to the urgent needs of those affected, which is why we have already provided more than £200 million to help those affected by the floods to support recovery and repair. A key feature of our package of support is the communities and business recovery scheme, which is designed to provide ready support to local authorities affected by Storm Desmond and Storm Eva and, in turn, to help individuals, small and medium-sized businesses and communities return to normality. Additionally, it provides property-level resilience grants of up to £5,000, so that people can protect their homes and businesses against future floods by putting in place resilient repairs. To date, under the communities and business recovery scheme, government has paid out a total of £21 million for Storm Desmond and £26 million for Storm Eva. Further payments will follow, and we are also supporting farmers with grants of up to £20,000 to help restore damaged agricultural land and farm vehicles and access and repair boundaries and to address field drainage.
Having set out what the Government have already done, I want now to turn to what more we can do. I am today announcing that the UK Government will make an application to the EU solidarity fund. The EUSF was set up to respond to major natural disasters. The fund was created as a reaction to the severe floods in central Europe in the summer of 2002. Since then, it has been used for 70 disasters covering a range of different catastrophic events, including floods, forest fires, earthquakes, storms and drought. The only time the UK has applied to the fund was following the flooding of 2007, which saw widespread and significant damage across large swathes of England. Member states have 12 weeks from the start of an incident to register their intent to claim. Once we have confirmed our intent, there is time to consider, with the Commission, the elements of assessment. Following this process, the Commission assesses the application and, if it is accepted, proposes an amount of aid to the European Parliament. Once the appropriations become available in the EU budget, the Commission adopts a decision, awarding the aid to the affected state. It is then paid out in a single instalment. When aid is paid out, the affected state is responsible for the implementation, including the selection of operations, and their audit and control. Emergency measures may be financed retrospectively from day one of the disaster, but the EUSF is not, and nor is it designed to be, a rapid response instrument for dealing with the effects of a natural disaster. Financial aid can be granted to the applying state only following an application and budgetary process, which can take several months to complete.
Alex Cunningham
I thank the Minister, my fellow Stockton MP, for his response, which is extremely welcome today. It has taken an urgent question to get the information from the Government, so I am delighted that you granted it, Mr Speaker. I know there has been considerable confusion in government about which Department was responsible for making the application, and I, for one, am delighted at today’s news. I was pleased when the Environment Secretary told the House last month that she was considering an application, only to have one of her civil servants answer my letter to her by telling me it was a DCLG responsibility. We now know the answer today—it is a DCLG responsibility, and I am glad that that Department has actually taken it on.
What we have always known is that it is a Government responsibility to apply to the solidarity fund, and a failure to do so would have deprived our communities of much-needed additional funding to get their homes, lives and businesses back on track. The whole House knows of the devastation that was caused across the country over the Christmas period and into the first months of this year. Recovery costs in Cumbria alone are estimated at £650 million. Other estimates of the total cost suggest that the clean-up bill will exceed £5 billion. It is therefore imperative that the Government do everything possible to maximise resources from all possible areas to support that operation.
I was pleased that, in her statement to the House on 5 January, the Secretary of State said:
“The Government will continue to do what it takes to get those areas up and running and prepare for future events.”—[Official Report, 5 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 70.]
However, for nearly three months, while gesturing a willingness to provide support and assistance, she and the Government have been shy about promoting an application. Members and their constituents have been left totally in the dark, as it appeared that the Government would fail to make an application for help from the EU solidarity fund, which was established precisely to respond to such natural disasters as those experienced in Cumbria, Lancashire, north Yorkshire and Scotland.
The fund has been used by states across the EU in response to 70 disasters, ranging from flooding and forest fires to earthquakes and storms. Just last year, Italy, Bulgaria and Romania received more than £40 million in similar circumstances. You will know, Mr Speaker, that we on the Labour Benches have been extremely anxious that this opportunity could be lost. To be clear, the first floods for which an application could be made in Cumbria were some 11 and a half weeks ago, yet it has taken the Government to within a single working day of the deadline to confirm that an application is being made. We all know that there are those who quite wrongly believe that we get little from the EU. I am clear that the UK should be embracing the offer of additional support, particularly as we have paid £300 million into the fund since it was set up.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Will he outline what discussions he has had across Government and with local authorities in the affected areas in the preparation of the application? Why have Members and communities been left in the dark for so long when it would have been a boost to them to know that more help could soon be on the way? What is the final estimate of the cost of the devastation suffered by our communities, and how much are the Government bidding for? Is there just one application, or will there be multiple applications to reflect the fact that a number of communities were affected and that each could qualify due to the level of devastation they have suffered?
Finally, I am aware that my Stockton neighbour and I will be on opposite sides in another debate—that of whether we remain in the European Union. Does the Minister not agree that it is funds such as this that can, and I hope will, bring great benefits not just to communities hit by natural disasters, but to constituencies such as his and mine where there are large numbers of people suffering considerable deprivation?
James Wharton
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Gentleman. The Department has been working on this application for some time. We had to draw together a range of information across Government Departments, talk to local areas, and assess the cost and impact of events that have taken place. That is what we have been doing, and what we will continue to do. As more information comes through and we go through the process of supporting those communities, we will ensure that the application is thorough, and that it accounts for all opportunities to add to it and to recognise the damage that has been done. Those discussions have been taking place across Government in the right way and in the right timeframe, so that we were able to make our announcement.
I congratulate the officials in my Department and in others who have been working hard to bring all the information together so that we can announce that this application will be made. The application will continue to evolve as more information comes through. As I said in my earlier comments, the European Union solidarity fund is not designed to be a rapid response to events of this kind. It is a longer-term fund to provide compensation to communities. Even though an application is now being made, it will take months for that money to be paid. However, we will continue in our commitment to supporting those communities, providing the funding and the backing that they need. That is what we have done so far and what we will continue to do to ensure that the communities affected by the terrible weather events get the support they need to recover as quickly as possible.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I gently say to the Minister and the House, that, in 2011, Somerset suffered from disastrous floods. The Prime Minister and my local area looked at this fund very closely indeed. We made the decision that we would not apply for it at that time, because it was too complicated, too difficult and the benefit to the communities was not there. [Interruption.] Those on the Labour Benches can chunter as much as they want, but we have now made the area in Somerset that was flooded safe through UK funding. The proof of the pudding is evident this year—we have not had to switch on the main pumps. The system has worked. We do not need this funding to do what we have to do to secure our communities.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend has demonstrated an understanding of the European Union solidarity fund that is absent among those on the Opposition Front Bench. It is a complex fund that requires a number of facts to be taken into consideration. There is an administration process that will take a long time and cost a significant amount. That is why we had to carry out a proper assessment to understand whether it would be of net benefit to the UK taxpayer to make an application before we got to the place where we could make the announcement that I have been able to confirm today. That is the right process, and my hon. Friend has demonstrated from his own constituency experience his deep understanding of the issue and the complexities of the matters before the House.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
I welcome the statement. The Minister talks about the rapid response. Where was the rapid decision-making process on the Government’s part? I welcome the announcement, but it was not a difficult question. If we have an insurance policy, of course we are going to cash it in. Why would we not do so? That is logical and sensible. I welcome it. In relation to Scotland, have the Minister and his Department calculated how much money will be coming to Scotland, owing to Barnett consequentials? Can he say anything about the timescale and when that might be expected?
James Wharton
The rapid response that I was talking about was the money that the Government immediately made available, the hard work that was done, particularly by my colleagues and officials in DEFRA, the Environment Agency and emergency responders—the work that was done straight away to support the communities affected by flooding. I can confirm that one of the factors that has delayed the process and made it more difficult to carry out the very complicated assessment that underpins the application to the EU solidarity fund has been the slowness of getting the information that we needed out of the Scottish Government. Had they responded more quickly, perhaps we would have been better informed earlier and able to announce with more clarity what would be done.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Three weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister why we were not applying for these funds. I am delighted that we are now doing so. More than 300 of my households were hit by the floods. A third of them were not covered by insurance because of the high premiums and eye-watering excesses. Perhaps some of this extra money can help them. In one case a business, the Ribchester Arms, has been closed since Boxing day. It has lost tens of thousands of pounds and still has ongoing costs. It hopes to be open by Easter. Can my hon. Friend make sure that Ministers look again at the number of businesses that were hit during the floods to see how much extra assistance, thanks to this money—our money; we are only bidding for our money—we can give them to help them get back into business?
James Wharton
There are thresholds that have to be met, there is an assessment of damage that has to be done, and there is no guarantee that an application to the fund would yield more money than the cost of applying and delivering it. None the less, we have made that assessment and have come to this decision. I am delighted that it pleases my hon. Friend. I would be happy to have discussions with him about individual businesses in his constituency, but I remind him that regardless of what happens with this fund, the Government have made significant funding available to support local businesses and communities affected by flooding. That funding is available now. We do not have to wait for this fund to come through to support the communities affected.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituency was not damaged in the most recent floods, but I know from previous flooding that speed is of the essence. I have known people in my constituency wait not just months, but years, to get their home back to a decent standard. It is all very well for the Minister to be uncharitable and find himself unable to say anything nice about the European Union, which provides the fund. People do not want just the wellies on the day; they want the action after the flooding.
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman is right—speed is of the essence, which is why the Government have made more than £200 million available to areas affected and made it available as quickly as possible—immediately —for the communities that needed support, so that support is there. This fund will take time to pay out. That is the way the process works. It will take months from the date of application to come to conclusion. We have decided to apply because we have assessed it to be of net benefit to the UK to do so, but the funding that communities needed was provided by this Government straight away.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My hon. Friend says that this is an important application, but will he put it in context? Every day British taxpayers pay £50 million to the European Union. How much does he think we are going to get back: three or four days’ worth of contributions?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend makes his point better than I would endeavour to do from the Dispatch Box today.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister has indicated that all that is required at this stage is a notification of intent to apply. If that is the case, surely he could have got the process under way weeks ago. When did he actually apply? Was it today, or yesterday? How much does he think he will actually recover? The Government have done the assessment, so what do they expect to recover from the European Union? Is he aware that the closure of the A591 in Cumbria is having a massive impact on the local economy—it is costing it £1 million a day—and on local families and businesses? The Government seem to lack a sense of urgency. Will he just get on with it?
James Wharton
I have to make it clear that there was no guarantee that the fund would bring a net benefit to the UK, or that it would be possible to apply, until a proper assessment had been done of the level of damage, the regional thresholds and whether we qualified to make an application. That assessment has now been done and we have announced our intention to apply before the deadline, which is the right thing to do. We will then work through the process to ensure that the UK gets the maximum benefit that can be delivered. Separately from that, the Government are already doing what needs to be done to support communities. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), has been doing a huge amount of work in Cumbria, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, to ensure that communities get the support they need, regardless of the progress made with this fund. It will take time, but we are now committed to applying to the fund.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the UK paid £36.5 million into the EU solidarity fund last year, making us the second largest net contributor, and that we have only ever claimed once, in 2007, when we received £130 million? Is not the reason we have been reluctant to claim that we get very little out of the scheme because of our rebate? Effectively, we are paying into an insurance scheme that we cannot claim from.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is an interplay between the application for funds, the funds being paid out and the rebate. The reality is that this is a complex process and there are restrictions on how money that is released can be spent. We have made the assessment and believe that the fund will be of net benefit to the UK, which is why we have today announced our intention to apply.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
Today’s announcement is welcome, but it is long overdue. What specific discussions have the Government had with local authorities in Scotland to ensure that the appropriate amount of support is sought for flood-affected communities?
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Much of this, as a devolved matter, is dealt with by the Scottish Government, but we have had ongoing discussions with them, including, in the context of the application I have announced today, on the information we need from them to underpin the parts of the application that apply to Scotland.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
This is excellent news. I accept that there are complexities in the EU solidarity fund, but what is unpalatable, and a horrendous burden for the people of Calder Valley, is the £32 million of infrastructure damage and the shortfall of £15 million for future flood defences. Now that we have applied to the fund, can my hon. Friend assure the people of Calder Valley that the cost of infrastructure repairs and shortfalls in any future flood defences will be met either by the fund or by the Government?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend has been one of the most diligent and passionate advocates for his area; since the storms in December and January, scarcely a day has gone by when we have not discussed matters pertaining to Calder Valley. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting the affected communities, and we continue to work with the local authority to ensure that is done. His representations have been incredibly helpful in informing the process of recovery already, as I am sure they will continue to be.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
May I, too, welcome this announcement, having outlined in my Westminster Hall debate last month the cost of the damage in my constituency and the neighbouring Calder Valley? The Minister has not been quite clear about exactly how much the Government hope to secure from the fund. Following the assessment he has done, can he indicate exactly what value of funding will be available?
James Wharton
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I wish to put on the record on the Floor of the House my appreciation for the constructive nature of the debate we had in Westminster Hall—I think it brings out the best in this place when we pull together to do what we can to support the communities we all represent. As I am sure she will appreciate, we are at the stage of having identified that applying will be of net benefit to the UK. We still have a lot of work to do to finalise the costs and figures that we will submit to the Commission, so I am not in a position to confirm what the entire net benefit will be at the end of the process, but we will of course keep the House updated as progress is made.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
To not give false hope to the communities everyone is talking about today, the Minister must say at the Dispatch Box that there is no guarantee of our ever receiving this money. Domestically, the process is complicated enough, but when we get to the European process, whereby we apply for some of our own money to come back to this country, it becomes even more complicated, and the timeline is extremely long. Will he give us a rough idea of how long the timeline was in 2007? Will he also assure communities that the Government are spending money now that is helping them, and that we will do well in the future even if this money from Europe does not come?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said, this is not a rapid response fund; the money takes a long time to come through. The Government therefore made more than £200 million available straightaway to provide the support that communities need. My hon. Friend understands Europe better than most, given his experiences and history of working there. What he says is valid, and Opposition Front-Bench Members should perhaps listen to it carefully and take it into account.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
We all welcome today’s announcement, and we all really felt the misery of the people affected when we watched the news on our TV screens. My constituents, particularly those in the West Kirby area, which is vulnerable to flooding, will be pleased to hear this news, but they will be a little baffled about why things have taken so long. I appreciate that work has been going on in the background, as the Minister said, but given what a miserable experience people have gone through, it would have been helpful if the Government had communicated their intention earlier. Will the Minister give an assurance that, should these things happen again, the Government will be prepared to apply to the fund?
James Wharton
I cannot give an assurance that the Government will always apply to the fund, because we may not always meet the threshold criteria to apply. We will always have to assess the cost-benefit to ensure that the cost of managing and delivering the fund does not outweigh the benefit that could come from it, and that includes, of course, the impact on the rebate. However, regardless of the fund, we have provided more than £200 million up front to ensure that communities such as those of which the hon. Lady speaks get the support they need.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s decision. Will he give an assurance that, if the application is successful, it will not be used to offset funding already allocated from other resources and that it will actually make more resources available to improve defences along the Humber estuary and elsewhere?
James Wharton
We do not yet know what the final quantum will be, or how long the money will take to be paid. What matters is ensuring that communities get the support they need now. The Government have made, and are making, that support available, and we continue to work with local authorities to deliver it. That is our priority, but we are confirming that this fund will be applied for, and we will, of course, keep hon. Members updated as we progress through the process.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Businesses in my constituency, and in the borough of Rochdale, are absolutely baffled about why the Government have left it until the eleventh hour to apply for this vital funding. Will the Minister please assure me that he will get the application in by Sunday? Does he not also agree that the fund is a great argument for remaining in the European Union?
James Wharton
I am disappointed that the hon. Lady’s local businesses are baffled, but I am sure that, on leaving the House today, she will wait not a moment to explain to them the reality of the process. As I have said, this is not a rapid reaction fund. We have to ensure that we meet thresholds, and we have to assess damage. There is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that we fully understand and apply for every bit of applicable damage, and we have announced that we will undertake that process. In the meantime, we have ensured that we have made funding available. It will still take many months for the fund to pay out, but we are pursuing that process.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), will the Minister please advise the House what support the Government can give small businesses and homeowners to improve resilience against future flooding and to prevent these things from happening again?
James Wharton
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which provides a timely opportunity to remind hon. Members, and indeed local authorities, that the Government are making up to £5,000 available for flooded properties through the property-level resilience grant. We are encouraging owners to apply for that funding to improve resilience. We are being flexible so that grants can be pooled, allowing multiple properties to invest in joint flood defence schemes. We have provided more than £200 million, and that is one aspect of this, but it is important to improve resilience for the future.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
If this were not so serious, the antics of the British nationalists on the Government Benches would be quite funny; perhaps they should learn something from lastminute.com. The Minister said that the Scottish Government took a long time to respond. The reality is this that the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities wrote to the Department, and the Deputy First Minister raised the issue on the floor of the Scottish Parliament. Is this the Minister’s long-winded, long-awaited response?
James Wharton
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman’s question was, but the reality is that the UK Government responded immediately to the weather events that we saw over December and January. We made funding available, and we gave local authorities freedom and control over how it was to be spent and delivered to support people affected by flooding. That is the right thing to do. There is still work to be done on the recovery. We are doing that work and will continue to do it until all communities feel that they can get back to normal and back open for business, as so many places already are, and we can move on from what has been a very difficult period for so many.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Hundreds of my constituents in Nottinghamshire have benefited from the repair and renew grants, or resilience grants, which are operated by the Minister’s Department and seem to be operating well in getting money to people very quickly. In my constituency, a number of constituents did something very altruistic and chose to pool their repair and renew grants, not just for small community projects but to put towards whole-village or whole-town flood defence schemes. Thanks to the valiant efforts of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), we managed to find a work-around so that that was achieved. Will the Minister assure me and other Members that elsewhere in the country such community-wide altruistic schemes can be a way of using the £5,000 repair and renew grants?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Absolutely: the £5,000 resilience grant for each property can be pooled as long as the properties concerned benefit from that pooling. We have designed the schemes to be as flexible as possible in responding to different circumstances in different places, but most importantly to respond quickly, unlike the fund that we are discussing, which, important as it is, will take several months from this date until it is seen to pay out.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
My constituents in Hull who were badly flooded in 2007 would have been aghast if the Labour Government at that time had not immediately said they would apply for the solidarity fund. When exactly was the decision made to make the application? The Minister is not offering much reassurance when he says that there is still much work to do if the deadline is this Sunday.
James Wharton
The intention, in accordance with the process that exists, is to indicate our intention to apply. I would be staggered had any Government immediately announced an intention to apply for the fund, because we cannot do so. We have to assess the impact on regional GDP and assess the costs to know whether we qualify. It might be easy to announce an application but then find that we do not qualify to apply. The responsible thing to do is to assess the costs and the potential benefit and then make a decision to apply, in time, if it is appropriate to do so. That is what this Government have done.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister has said today and his recent visit to Pendle. I thank him for the Government’s decisive action to address flood risk, including the Environment Agency’s commitment to spend more than £500,000 this year on addressing flood risk in the village of Earby in my constituency. Will he join me in encouraging the many tourists and visitors who regularly visit flood-affected parts of the UK to show their support by visiting this Easter or this summer?
James Wharton
I thank my hon. Friend. Many of the areas that were affected by flooding in December and January are some of the most beautiful parts of our country and of the north of England, and there are businesses across those communities that are very much open for business. We are encouraging people to continue to visit, or to consider visiting, those wonderful places to support their economies and communities. Many of them are open almost as though nothing had happened, working through what has been a trying period that has none the less shown the very best of the community spirit that exists right across the north.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Given that large parts of Greater Manchester were flooded, I welcome the Government signalling their intention to apply for these funds. The Minister implied that they have been working on the detail of the bid for some time, so will he clarify the detail of what they intend to use the funds for? Will it be to assist local authorities with the ongoing reconstruction work after the floods, or will it be to future-proof our flood defences?
James Wharton
The Government’s priority is to support the affected communities today. We have ensured that funding is available immediately to do that. We are still working through the process of the fund application, and we will continue to do that for as long as it looks like it will produce a net benefit to the UK. We will pursue it and ensure it is delivered, because we can see its benefit to communities. What matters to communities such as those that the hon. Gentleman represents is the quick response, the funding that is made available and the support that is given to local authorities to deliver immediately on their immediate needs and for their recovery thereafter. That is what we have done, and we continue to make funds available to do it. We have made that commitment and will stick to it.
Business of the House
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the future business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 29 February—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the European Union referendum, followed by Opposition day (un-allotted half day). There will be a half-day debate on the UK steel industry on an Opposition motion.
Tuesday 1 March—Estimates (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the 2015 spending review, followed by a debate on the reform of the police funding formula.
[The details are as follows: First Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, The FCO and the 2015 Spending Review, HC 467, and the Government response, HC 816; and Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Reform of the Police Funding Formula, HC 476.]
Wednesday 2 March—Estimates (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on the science budget, followed by a debate on end of life care. At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates, followed by proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill. Further details will be given in the Official Report, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
[The details are as follows: First Report from the Science and Technology Committee, The Science Budget, HC 340, and the Government response, HC 729; and Fifth Report from the Health Committee, Session 2014-15, HC 805, and the Government response, Cm 9143; First Report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Follow-up to PHSO Report: Dying without dignity, HC 432; Sixth Report from the Public Administration Committee, Session 2014-15, Investigating clinical incidents in the NHS, HC 886.]
Thursday 3 March—Debate on a motion on gangs and serious youth violence, followed by general debate on Welsh affairs. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 4 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 7 March will include:
Monday 7 March—Second Reading of the Policing and Crime Bill.
Tuesday 8 March—Remaining stages of the Enterprise Bill [Lords] (day 1), followed by a debate on a motion on International Women’s Day. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 9 March—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Enterprise Bill [Lords] (day 2), followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
Thursday 10 March—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 11 March—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 3 March and 7 March will be:
Thursday 3 March—Debate on the offshore oil and gas industry.
Monday 7 March—Debate on an e-petition relating to the income threshold for non EU citizens settling in the UK.
Chris Bryant
Mr Speaker, as I am sure you are away—[Laughter.] It hasn’t started very well, has it? As I am sure you are aware, today is St Æthelbert’s day. I hope you are not confusing him with the other St Æthelbert, who was king of East Anglia, or any of the other Anglo-Saxon saints, like St Athwulf, St Bertha, St Congar or, of course, Sexwulf, who was the bishop of Mercia who founded Peterborough Abbey. Today’s St Æthelbert was king of Kent and died in 616. It is particularly relevant that we commemorate Æthelbert today, as he was the first king to establish laws in these lands banning blood feuds. I suspect that the out campaign and the Conservative party have need of him.
After all, when George Galloway turned up at an out campaign the other day, half the room left; Nigel Farage thinks that Gove, Cummings and Johnson are too clever by half and has sacked all his deputies; the Prime Minister is furious with the Justice Secretary for saying that his deal on the European Union is not legally binding; the Johnsons are engaged in a full-blown family bust-up; and the Mayor of London seems to be feuding with himself. Only this month, he wrote that leaving would mean
“diverting energy from the real problems of this country”,
but now he wants to do precisely that. He is not so much veering around like a shopping trolley as off his trolley, if you ask me.
The Prime Minister and the Mayor maintain that they are still friends. As St Æthelbert might have said, greater love hath no man for himself than this, that a man lay down his friend for a chance of getting his job.
Talking of mothers’ advice, my mother told me three things. First, if it is free, take two. Secondly, never take home a man who is wearing a hat until you have seen him without the hat. I can see that the Leader of the House agrees with that one. Thirdly, and more importantly, never trust a man who is wearing slip-on shoes. I merely point out that the Prime Minister was wearing slip-on shoes yesterday.
Now we know that the referendum period will run from 15 April until 23 June—[Interruption.] Do keep calm. Would it not make sense for the Queen’s speech to be delayed until after the referendum in late June or early July? The House did not sit in the immediate run-up to the referendums in 1975 and 2014 because they coincided with normal recess dates. Should we not do the same in relation to this referendum in June: rise on 16 June and return on 27 June?
I know what you are thinking, Mr Speaker. The Government’s business is so threadbare, how on earth can we keep the Session going until July? I have a suggestion for the Government. They could simply hand the rest of the business over to us. We could, first, abolish the bedroom tax; secondly, save our steel; thirdly, repeal the gerrymandering of parliamentary boundaries; and, fourthly, force Google to pay its fair share of tax, just as the French Socialist Government did. They are charging Google £1.3 billion in tax, as opposed to this shabby little Tory Government, who are letting Google get away with just a tenth of that: £130 million.
I welcome the nearly St David’s day debate on Welsh affairs. It will give Members a chance to welcome the 750 new jobs that have just been announced by Aston Martin, thanks to the work of the Labour Government in the National Assembly; to point out that cancer survival rates have improved faster in Wales than anywhere else in the UK; and, most importantly, to congratulate Subzero, whose new ice cream parlour in the Rhondda has served 10,000 customers in just 11 days, proving that all those blasted migrants who came to the valleys from Italy in the 19th century did us a big favour by giving us frothy coffee and the best ice cream in the country. Is it not time you made sure that we had Subzero here in Westminster, Mr Speaker?
I welcome the International Women’s Day debate on 8 March, when I hope we will be able to raise important questions, such as the horrifying statistic that violent crime, including domestic violence, has risen by 23% in south Wales in recent years. However, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the Dame Janet Smith review into sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile? Something was terribly wrong at the BBC for a long time. Staff knew what was going on but were terrified to say anything. Auntie lost her way, children were abused and the victims were badly let down. We must, surely, make sure that that never happens again.
Finally, private Acts of Parliament have been published on archival paper rather than vellum since 1956, and now the House of Lords has recommended that public Acts follow suit to save money. As you will recall, Mr Speaker, our Administration Committee published a report in which it agreed with the Lords, and the Leader of the House agreed with that report at the Members Estimate Committee that you chaired on 2 November. During the recess, for some bizarre reason, the Minister for the Cabinet Office stuck his oar in, and said that he was going to pay to keep on using vellum. That is a parliamentary decision, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the Government or the Cabinet Office. Will the Leader of the House please tell the Cabinet Office to butt out, and will he allow a vote on the matter so that all Members can make their views known?
Chris Grayling
I must say that if I was the shadow Leader of the House I would not have picked today to bring up the issue of the European Union referendum. You may not know this, Mr Speaker, but all Labour MPs have apparently been asked to take to the streets on Saturday to campaign to keep Britain in the European Union. You may not be surprised to learn that one or two Conservative Members may be on the streets to campaign for Britain to leave the European Union, but what about the Leader of the Opposition? He is going on a CND anti-nuclear march, even though his deputy said yesterday that he would vote to keep Trident. You really could not make it up.
Another two weeks have passed, and the shadow Leader of the House is still in his place and still a paid-up member of the Corbyn fan club. I knew his party leader was a disciple of Marx, but I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman was—a disciple not of Karl Marx, but of Groucho Marx, who famously said:
“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them...well, I have others.”
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Queen’s Speech and the flow of business. I can assure him that this House will continue to consider the Government’s extremely important agenda, which is making and will continue to make a real difference to this country. In 10 days’ time, we will have another Second Reading debate, on the important reforms in the Policing and Crime Bill, and we will shortly bring forward the Investigatory Powers Bill. He need have no fears: this Government have a strong and continuing agenda for this country, which we will continue to pursue.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Aston Martin. May I say how delighted I am about Aston Martin’s decision for Wales? It is good news for the people of Wales and good news for the United Kingdom. It is a tribute to the way in which this country is being run and to the favourable economic climate that exists under this Government, which is why big and small businesses are investing in this country.
I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about the report on the BBC and what has been said this morning. What took place is clearly absolutely shocking. Lessons need to be learned not just in the BBC, but in institutions across this country. It is inexplicable to our generation how these things could have been allowed to happen over all those years, but we must not think such things could not happen today and we must make sure they never happen today. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be in the Chamber next Thursday, and I have no doubt that he will want to discuss the issue then.
The question of vellum is a matter for the House of Lords. The House of Lords will reach a decision, and that decision will be final.
There is exciting news for beer drinkers around the country. For the princely sum of £6, people can now drink their favourite pint out of their own Jeremy Corbyn pint glass. I think there will be a stampede. I do not know whether the shadow Leader of the House has one yet, but I am sure he will rush to the Labour website to buy one.
Surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman did not ask for a debate on public spending and the economy. That may be because he agrees with the former shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who has said that the Labour party’s current approach to public spending is to place all its faith in what he called a “magic money tree”, by promising to reverse every cut and to spend, spend, spend. I think we should wish the previous shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, a happy birthday today. I never imagined that the Labour party would miss him so much.
Perhaps the Scottish nationalists can be excluded from this, but may I ask the shadow Leader of the House to join me in congratulating Wales on its victory over Scotland in the Six Nations during the recess? I did, however, still hear the tones of “Delilah” coming from the crowd, as usual, at that match. Welsh rugby fans obviously pay no more attention to what he says than anyone in this House does.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On Monday, the Prime Minister said that the Government would publish a lot more documents relating to the European Union. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what those documents are likely to be and when they will be published? Will he guarantee that the documents will be subject to independent audit and scrutiny by this House?
Chris Grayling
This House will of course have plenty of opportunity, including in its Committees and indeed in the debate today, to discuss what has already been published and what will be published. Anything that is published by the Government will of course have to go through appropriate checking by the civil service and will be subject to all the rules set out in the European Union Referendum Act 2015.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I, too, thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week.
I think it would be appropriate to congratulate Adele on her four Brit awards yesterday evening and Coldplay on becoming the British act with the most Brit awards. The deputy Leader of the House and I enjoyed the ceremony last night, I think it would be fair to say.
We are being a bit short-changed today. We have heard a business statement from the “out” side of the Cabinet, but there is no business statement from the “in” side of the Cabinet. The Leader of the House, who is the leader of the no campaign too, has the opportunity to spread his pernicious “no” agenda for the next hour or hour and a half. When will we get to hear the business statement from the “in” side of the Cabinet, because this week marked the end of collective Cabinet responsibility, particularly for the next few months?
The nasty civil war in the Tory party is starting to get serious. It looks like the poor old Justice Secretary will be first for the boot. I do not know whether the Leader of the House will rush to his defence and man the barricades to try to save him. Even friendships that go right back to the playing fields of Eton look like the remnants of a Bullingdon night out. For my colleagues on these Benches, it is popcorn time as we observe not just a civil war in the Tory party, but the ongoing civil war within the Labour party.
I am going to do something very radical on Tuesday. It is not to declare a unilateral declaration of independence for Scotland or announce MP4’s Eurovision participation—I am going to do something much more radical. In the debate on the estimates, I am going to attempt to debate the estimates. Apparently, that has never been done. I say “attempt” because I have had conversations with the Clerks and it is more than likely that I will be ruled out of order for attempting to debate the estimates on estimates day, because the one thing we are not to debate on estimates day is the estimates. Where in the world, other than in this absurd House, could that possibly be the case?
I just want to remind the House what the estimates are. They are the consolidated spending of the Departments of this nation, but we have no opportunity to debate them. The Leader of the House will remember very clearly that during the debate on English votes for English laws, he made it very clear to us that all issues of Barnett consequentials were to be bound up in the debates about the estimates, yet we have no opportunity to debate them. It will be right and proper of you, Mr Speaker, to rule me out of order if I attempt to debate the estimates—that is the natural consequence—but we have to end the absurd notion that we cannot even start to debate departmental spending in this House.
We got a deal on the fiscal framework this week and I think that everybody is absolutely delighted. I congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on stopping the Treasury trying to diddle Scotland out of £7 billion. However, I want to ask what happens next, because the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in front of the Scottish Affairs Committee that the fiscal framework would come back to this House for further scrutiny.
Pete Wishart
I can see that the hon. Gentleman is agreeing. I do not mind scrutiny of the fiscal framework—it is right and proper that this House looks at it—but will the Leader of the House today rule out this House having a veto on the fiscal framework that was agreed between the UK and Scottish Governments?
Lastly, I do not know whether the Leader of the House is on speaking terms with his no longer good friend the Prime Minister, but, if he is, will he tell him to please stay away from Scotland for the next few months? We value our European membership in Scotland, so will the Prime Minister please stay away? In the meantime, there is a warm invitation to the Leader of the House, the Justice Secretary and the Mayor of London to come to Scotland any time.
Chris Grayling
That is very generous of the hon. Gentleman. I am coming to Scotland in about 10 days’ time and I look forward to whipping up support for the Conservative campaign, which has a really good chance of consigning the Labour party to third place in the Scottish elections. That would give us enormous pleasure and I have a sneaking suspicion that it might give him enormous pleasure as well.
This may surprise the hon. Gentleman, but he and I have the same view on Europe: I want him to succeed in the Eurovision song contest. Whether it is this year or next year, I want to see MP4 go all the way. There is even a new scoring system that might give the British entry a better chance. So I say to him, if at first you don’t succeed, keep on, keep on. We are all with him all the way.
I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on the European referendum, but he will not find any nastiness because we are all friends and we all get on with each other. [Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, but the difference is that they all hate each other. They are split down the middle, fighting like ferrets in a sack. That is the Labour party today. We are going to have a grown-up, sensible debate. The country will decide and then we will work together to implement what the country has decided. In the meantime, Labour Members will run around like headless chickens, trying to work out what on earth they should do about the mess they are in.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is a member of the Liaison Committee, which has estimates days at its disposal and can decide what subjects should be debated and considered. I fear he may have lost the argument in that Committee, or perhaps he did not raise it in the first place. The Government delegate to the Liaison Committee the decision on what to debate on those two days, and if it does not choose to debate a particular area, that is a matter for the Committee. The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities during the year to raise and discuss issues related to public spending in the Budget debate and following the autumn statement, and I am sure he will do so.
We are all delighted that agreement has been reached on the fiscal framework. The Scotland Bill continues to progress through the other place, and if there are any amendments it will return to this place. We all want to get it into statute so that we are clearly seen to have fulfilled the promises we made at the time of the referendum in implementing all elements of the Smith commission report. I am sure that the Prime Minister will spend time in Scotland campaigning for a Conservative victory in the Scottish elections in May.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Since 2010 it has been a criminal offence to shine a laser at an aircraft, yet over the past five and a half years there have been nearly 9,000 incidents of lasers being shone on to military and civilian—albeit it mostly civilian—aircraft. May we have a debate on what more the Government can do to protect civilian and military aircraft, so as to protect pilots and passengers and ensure that the skies above this country are safe to fly in?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it is a matter of great concern, particularly with the recent incident of a plane having had to turn back after a laser attack. None of us would wish there to be danger of a serious aviation disaster as a result of that completely inappropriate behaviour. The Transport Secretary will be in the House on Thursday week. I will ensure that he is aware of concerns that have been raised, and my hon. Friend might also like to raise them with him.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Lord Adonis made most interesting comments on the radio yesterday afternoon, suggesting that the Government should prioritise a number of early and less expensive investments in our railway infrastructure. I have proposed detailed schemes for—among others—the west coast main line, east coast main line, and the Birmingham to London line. I put those suggestions in a formal submission to the House of Lords, which has been referred to in this House. Others will no doubt have their own proposals, so will the Leader of the House make time for an early, full debate on railway investment?
Chris Grayling
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman and Lord Adonis have been saying, and one thing that has characterised this Government’s approach, as well as that of the rail industry since privatisation, is the opening of new stations and the re-opening of lines. A second route has recently been opened from London to Oxford—a sign of a flourishing industry that we want to grow and develop with large projects and small. As I said, the Transport Secretary will be in the House in 10 days’ time, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman could make his point to him. We believe in the future of our railways, and they are an essential part of the transport system of this country.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Is the Leader of the House aware that the renegotiation package for the EU referendum is based on an international agreement and lacks the enforcement mechanisms of EU and domestic law? Is it correct that any such agreement must conform to EU law and, to the extent that it does not, that EU law will prevail?
Chris Grayling
That matter will be subject to lively debate this afternoon in the House and over the coming weeks. The view of the Attorney General, the Government’s senior law officer, is that the agreement reached in Brussels last week is legally binding on all members of the European Union.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware—I have written to him about this—that earlier this week an important debate on knife and gang crime was bumped by Government business, urgent questions and a statement. We have rescheduled that debate for Thursday 3 March. On 8 March we have International Women’s Day, and a debate sponsored by the Backbench Businesses Committee. Will the Leader of the House allow us protected time so that such an eventuality does not occur again, particularly since that debate has been scheduled specifically because 8 March is International Women’s Day?
Many hundreds of thousands of people are now missing from electoral registers around the country. Yesterday, we had the initial findings of the Office for National Statistics on what size constituencies should be by population. We now have something that might drive people to register: the European Union referendum. Will the Leader of the House take back to the Cabinet the question of whether the Boundary Commission’s work should be put on hold to see whether the hundreds of thousands of people who have not registered can register in time for the referendum? Boundaries could then be drawn up on the basis of the real electorate, rather than the electorate back in December.
Chris Grayling
I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s point about International Women’s Day, which I absolutely understand is time-sensitive to that day, and I will continue to bear in mind what he asks for regarding protected time. At the moment, however, it does not feel as if there is a long pipeline of delayed debates. What happened this week was unfortunate, but it was better that the debate was moved rather than severely curtailed.
On constituency boundaries, the Boundary Commission process takes place over two years. There will be plenty of time for the Boundary Commission to adapt and for individual Members to make representations for changes if they do not believe that a recommendation is correct. [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Leader of the House chuntering from his place as usual. I just hope, from his point of view, that his constituents in the Rhondda like him as much as his colleagues on the Back Benches do when it comes to determining whether he gets a new seat following the boundary changes.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I was perturbed to hear today that BBC Radio 5 Live could be moved to online content only. While this would relieve the nation from the embarrassment of colleagues in this House playing—to give it a more tasteful title—kiss, marry or avoid on “Pienaar’s Politics”, it could deprive the nation of an outstanding sports and news radio broadcaster. May we therefore hold a debate in this place to address the need for the BBC to continue to be funded, as befits the nation’s broadcaster?
Chris Grayling
The subject of the BBC charter renewal is a very live one. I suspect that many of us have had emails about it. The Government’s view is that we want to preserve the BBC as a high quality public service broadcaster. It will, of course, be a matter for the BBC to decide how best to deploy its resources. We have to ensure, given that it is a levy on households of all different backgrounds and circumstances up and down the country, that the BBC operates cost-effectively and keeps the licence fee as low as possible.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I notice that the Leader of the House failed to respond to the shadow Leader’s very sensible suggestion that the recess and the Queen’s Speech be scheduled to take account of the EU referendum. Will the Leader of the House give a proper response, especially given that the outcome of the referendum itself could have a major impact on the legislative programme?
Chris Grayling
The point I made in my remarks was that the Government have a full programme and will continue to have a full programme. It is really important that we do not allow the EU referendum to divert us from the very important task of governing the country. We will continue to deliver the right solutions for the country, and we will continue to bring forward the right legislation for the country. We will, of course, consider how best to ensure that hon. Members have the right opportunities to participate in the referendum, but we need to ensure that the governing of the country is not diverted by what is happening.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My constituents, Mr and Mrs Vaughan, have been waiting four years for an assessment of their continuing healthcare costs for a deceased relative, despite an assurance that the clinical commissioning group had made attempts, with extra resources, to clear a backlog. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the delays to retrospective continuing healthcare costs assessments, because it is causing enormous distress to my constituents and, I am sure, to many others?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend speaks with his customary effectiveness on behalf of his constituents. This issue affects a number of Members and constituents up and down the country. I will make sure the Health Secretary is aware of the concerns he has raised and ask the Department of Health to respond to him.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
What is the view of the Leader of the House on the legal status of the Prime Minister’s European agreement? Does he agree with his successor as Justice Secretary or does he agree with the Attorney General, whose view he mentioned earlier? The Leader of the House was the only Lord Chancellor not to be a lawyer. He therefore has an advantage in terms of plain speaking, so who does he agree with: the Justice Secretary or the Attorney General?
Chris Grayling
Fortunately, I am not a lawyer, so I am not going to give the right hon. Gentleman legal advice. I would say what I said earlier—that the view of the Attorney General on behalf of the Government is that it has legal force, but I am sure that this is going to be a matter of lively debate in the weeks ahead.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
The Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that, over a short time span, two separate debates took place in Westminster Hall on serious allegations of collusion between banks and valuers in order deliberately to undervalue and then seize assets. Numerous other cases have now come to light, and more than 10 MPs of different parties have written to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills to ask him to investigate. A particular situation, which involved Barclays bank and Lambert Smith Hampton, has led to my constituent Bryan Evans losing everything he has worked for over many years, including, recently, his house. Is it not time for a debate on the Floor of the House on these matters so that we can decide whether the Government need to act to ensure that the law is upheld?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is working hard and effectively on behalf of his constituents. He will understand that I cannot comment on the detail of the allegations. I know that the Solicitor General addressed a Westminster Hall debate on this specific case and on the role of the Serious Fraud Office earlier this month. Of course, the SFO, in conjunction with others, has considered these allegations from the outset, and my hon. Friend is well aware of the conclusions that have been reached. If he takes the view that the SFO’s remit should be broader to take matters such as this one further, I would encourage him to bring the matter to the attention of Treasury Ministers when they are before the House next week and perhaps look to bringing back to the Floor of this House a debate on the broader remit of the SFO and the ability of that organisation and others to investigate such matters.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Leader of the House aware that if the clinical commissioning group and the Government have their way, Huddersfield, a large university town, is likely to be one of the only such large towns to have no A&E facility within five miles? Does he agree that we need an early debate on what is going on with these CCGs? Why are we seeing all this pressure on the health service when the Prime Minister said during the general election that he would preserve A&E in the towns and cities of this country?
Chris Grayling
This issue has, of course, affected my own constituency, where it has led to a lively debate for a while. We have entrusted local doctors with decision making about the configuration of services. In my own area, it was certainly the view of local doctors that prevailed over plans for reconfiguration 18 months ago. It is really down to the hon. Gentleman’s local GPs and those who control commissioning in the area to decide on the configuration of services. My advice, having been through this myself, is to make sure that he discusses the issue with them and brings their views forward. That is what made the big difference in my area.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
You may like to know, Mr Speaker, that my petition to save the hedgehog has now reached over 19,000 signatures since it was launched two weeks ago. I am fully aware that that is about 80,000 short of meeting the requirement for a parliamentary debate, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that because it has more than 10,000 signatures the Government must write to me to clarify what they might actually do?
Chris Grayling
I congratulate my hon. Friend, as always, on his assiduousness on this issue. I can confirm that he will receive a proper response from the Government. I have a sneaking suspicion that he may make his way to that 100,000 point in order to secure a debate in this House. This week, of course, we have had a cautionary tale, linking some of the themes that sometimes appear in business questions. We talk about superfoods, and we talk about black puddings from Stornoway and Bury. We learned this week that if we feed meat to hedgehogs, it can have a rather adverse effect on them, as we saw in the tragic case of the hedgehog that has become so fat on eating meat that it cannot even roll itself up.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
My constituent Lance Bombardier James Simpson sadly lost both legs in Afghanistan, but he has since inspired people by becoming the first double amputee to do an obstacle challenge. He and other brave injured servicemen, however, have found that the NHS cannot cope with their artificial limbs. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on how the NHS can solve the problem and come up with a better plan to help our brave servicemen and women?
Chris Grayling
I was not aware of this. Those who have served this country and lost limbs in its service are people whom we should admire without reserve. Some of the achievements of those injured servicemen after their return from the front line have been simply awe-inspiring. I was not aware of the problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised today. The Secretary of State for Defence will be here on Monday, but I shall also ensure that the Department of Health is made aware of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and responds to him.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I hope that the whole House will join me in congratulating the Mayor of London, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), on his wise decision—much publicised this week—to name Crossrail the Elizabeth line in order to commemorate the Queen’s 90th birthday. My patriotic constituents in the village of Worthington would also like to commemorate that event, but they have been hit by the county council with a £400 bill for road closure. May we have a statement from the Government on the issuing of guidance to county councils proposing that they waive such charges, as was done during the Jubilee celebrations?
Chris Grayling
I, too, was delighted by the decision to name Crossrail the Elizabeth line, which is a fitting tribute to a magnificent monarch as she approaches her 90th birthday. We should all celebrate all that she has done for this country. I hope that local authorities will be wise and sensible, and will encourage communities to come together to take part in the celebrations that will take place this summer. Let me add that I think this has been a week in which my hon. Friend the Mayor of London has shown great wisdom.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
On 19 February, at North Middlesex hospital, more than 100 patients were told over the tannoy, “Please go home unless you have a life-threatening illness.” Of course, they would have to self-diagnose to be able to make that decision. Some patients had been waiting on trolleys for more than five hours with no cubicle space and no ward beds to go to, while dozens were in a waiting room facing a wait of more than eight hours to be seen.
This is a crisis in A & E provision, certainly for Enfield and Haringey and, I think, more widely, and it was entirely predictable, particularly given that the Government closed the A & E department at Chase Farm hospital in 2013. Many of my constituents sat waiting that night, and they are outraged at this situation. May we have an early debate, in Government time, about the A & E crisis that is affecting Enfield and Haringey and other areas?
Chris Grayling
I do not know about that particular circumstance, but pressures on A & E obviously ebb and flow depending on local circumstances, especially at this time of year, and that this is one reason why we continue to put additional funding into the national health service. I seem to recall that, some while back, the former Health Secretary argued that putting more money into the NHS was not the right thing to do.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I am sure Members agree that we do not discuss Europe enough in this place. May I make the helpful suggestion that we alter the business of the House in order to hold a weekly European Union Question Time? According to my prejudice, the Leader of the House himself would answer the questions. I would then have an opportunity to ask, for instance, “Should the British people, in their wisdom, leave the European Union, would it be this Government who decided such matters as VAT rates on sanitary towels?”
Chris Grayling
It is certainly true that VAT on sanitary towels is currently imposed by the European Union, and I suspect that it would not be imposed by the House of Commons. As for the subject of debates on Europe, the one debate that I am unfortunately unable to have, although I would love to have it, is with the shadow Leader of the House, because he bitterly regretted that we did not join the euro. I would love to be able to debate whether he got that one right or wrong.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
If the Leader of the House casts his mind back to business questions on 28 January, he may recall that on that occasion he failed to answer a request from the shadow Leader of the House for details of how he would arrange for parliamentary scrutiny of the changes that the Cabinet Office was intending to introduce to local government pension rules and procurement guidelines for public institutions. He may also know that the Minister for the Cabinet Office decided to announce the second of those changes last week, not in the House but in Israel, during a joint press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Given that there is now real uncertainty about what those changes mean, and the apparent conflict between what the Minister for the Cabinet Office considers to be the target of the guidelines and official Foreign Office advice warning of the risks to business of becoming financially involved with illegal actions by Israel in the occupied territories, we are still waiting to hear how all this can be scrutinised. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister for the Cabinet Office finally to come to the House, make a statement and answer questions?
Chris Grayling
The Minister for the Cabinet Office will be here on 9 March to take questions. Mr Speaker, you have been generous in granting opportunities to Members of this House to raise concerns in urgent questions, but I cannot remember this subject being raised in that way, so perhaps it is not that urgent.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
When I heard from a constituent that she had gone elsewhere in the country to volunteer as part of her Duke of Edinburgh award, I was, as I am sure all hon. Members would be, delighted at her commitment to this award scheme and to volunteering. However, I was less pleased by the fact that she had to pay a rather large sum for her rail ticket and then discovered that by splitting her tickets she could perfectly legally have paid a lot less. May we have a debate on how such fare information can be much more widely publicised and whether rail companies should be obliged to show the cheapest possible way of getting from A to B?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend the rail Minister would be very much in agreement with what my hon. Friend says, and indeed is working to achieve that. All of us who travel by train will sometimes find a bizarre fare structure and bizarre circumstances, such as finding that the first class fare is lower than the second class fare, or that it is cheaper to split the journey in half. It would be much easier and more straightforward if the information available to the public was obvious, straightforward and demonstrated the cheapest way to travel.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, you will be aware that several times I have called for us to have a debate on serious youth violence and the Leader of the House has advised me to go to the Backbench Business Committee. I was really chuffed when the Committee agreed to have a debate on this, but deeply disappointed that we did not get that time on Tuesday. Many of my colleagues came here to engage in the debate, but were unable to do so. How are we going to ensure that next Thursday the time is protected and we debate this very important issue?
Chris Grayling
It is, of course, a very important issue. It was unfortunate that on Tuesday, with the extended statement on Monday from the Prime Minister and the volume of additional subjects Members wanted to bring before the House, that that debate ended up being squeezed out. We made sure that there was an early opportunity for the Backbench Business Committee to bring it back to the House, and when we debate it on Thursday, it is much less likely to be under the pressure of time than it was on Tuesday, which was a particularly unusual day in terms of parliamentary time.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
This week has seen the welcome news that the Avanti Schools Trust has secured planning permission for the first state-sponsored Hindu “all-through” school. In addition, Hujjat school, which will be the first Muslim school in Harrow, has also secured approval from the Department for Education and has reached the first stage, thereby ensuring that parents in Harrow will have the opportunity of giving a faith-based education to their children if that is what they want. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for us to have a debate on the importance of faith-based education to allow parents to exercise their choice and ensure that they get the education for their children that they wish to have?
Chris Grayling
I congratulate all in my hon. Friend’s constituency who have succeeded in bringing forward these exciting new plans. It has always been my view that faith-based education has an important place in our society. While it is important that a faith-based school is not a school of one faith, my experience is that the ethos a faith-based school brings delivers a high quality of education, and what is happening locally is very exciting. I am sure he will take advantage of the opportunity to express to the Secretary of State, when she is here shortly for questions, just how important a part of this Government’s policy that work is.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Government have amended substantially their own Enterprise Bill to include provisions on Sunday trading. Can the Leader of the House explain how Back Benchers who are concerned about the English votes for English laws status of the Government amendments can make representations within the terms of the Standing Orders concerning the effect of new proposals made by the Government?
Chris Grayling
These proposals will, of course, be the subject of debate in Committee and, if Members choose, on Report on the Floor of the House, but the advice that the hon. Gentleman seeks is best obtained from the Clerks.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Can a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement explaining what action the Government are taking to protect holders of the Lloyds bank enhanced capital notes from enforced early redemption? Several constituents have contacted me to say that they have been forced to close these. That has had a great effect on their planned income and they have received very little protection from the Financial Conduct Authority.
Chris Grayling
I am aware of those concerns, and my hon. Friend is doing his usual effective job on behalf of his constituents. The essence of what he is arguing relates to the remit of the FCA and its ability to do the job he would wish in a matter such as this. Of course, Treasury Ministers are here on Monday and I advise him to bring that matter to them, as they are ultimately responsible for setting the remit of that authority.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Leader of the House may be aware of the horrible murder of the Cambridge student Giulio Regeni in Egypt. He disappeared six or seven weeks ago and his body was found horribly mutilated a few weeks later. He is much missed by the academic community in Cambridge, and he was carrying out academic duties at the time. I pressed the Foreign Secretary to urge the Egyptian authorities to explain what has gone on. Will there be an opportunity to discuss the situation in Egypt soon?
Chris Grayling
This was a horrible incident and our hearts go out to Giulio Regeni’s family, his friends and all his colleagues in Cambridge. Although Egypt is a great country, it still faces significant issues and challenges. I will make sure that the Foreign Secretary is reminded of the concerns the hon. Gentleman raises, and I have no doubt that the Government will want to set out an opportunity for discussing matters across the middle east generally, which will give him the opportunity he seeks in the near future.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Tomorrow evening, I will be attending a residents’ meeting in Cleethorpes, accompanied by the Humberside police and crime commissioner, Matthew Grove. He was been particularly effective as a channel for representing his constituents. Ahead of the May PCC elections, may we have a debate on the role of PCCs and how their powers may be extended?
Chris Grayling
Matthew Grove will always have a fond place in the Conservative lexicon as the man who beat John Prescott to that job of PCC for Humberside. That was a matter of huge disappointment to Labour Members—[Interruption.] Clearly, the shadow Deputy Leader of the House is not a fan, but after that victory we will always regard Mr Grove fondly.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
My constituency has benefited tremendously from European Union structural funding, and of course that will not be available if we leave the EU. May we have a statement as to the advantages that EU structural funds have brought to the most deprived communities of the UK? Would the Leader of the House be willing to deliver such a statement personally?
Chris Grayling
Of course we have a debate this afternoon on this area, so the hon. Gentleman may want to take part in it. Those on the Government side of the argument would say that EU structural funds are important, but I am sure that those who disagreed with that view would say that in fact all we are doing is giving money to Brussels in order for those there to give it back to us.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
Notwithstanding the debate we have just had on flooding, there is another part to this issue that we hardly discuss at all in this House—coastal erosion. This year, there has been more erosion around the UK coasts, because of the storms coming from America, than there has been for many years. May we either have time in this Chamber to debate this or have a statement on the subject? Figures show that up to 74,000 homes could be at risk over the next 100 years, so we need to make plans now to be able to look to the future and ensure that we are successful in tackling this.
Chris Grayling
The importance of the issue has been brought home to us by the extraordinary archaeological work done around the historic port of Dunwich, which was once one of England’s largest towns but which has almost completely disappeared. We understand from that work just how much difference coastal erosion can make. My hon. Friend makes an important point and I suggest that he might like to join others whose constituencies are affected, including those who represent areas on the east coast of England, to secure a debate via the Backbench Business Committee.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
May we have a statement or a debate in Government time on the extraordinary allegations published by London’s The Times last week on the treatment of asylum seekers living in Glasgow by Home Office providers Serco and Orchard and Shipman? There were allegations of, among other things, the spraying of air fresheners towards asylum seekers; physical intimidation; and the placing of asylum seekers in uninhabitable housing. Does the Leader of the House agree that such dehumanising treatment of asylum seekers merits Ministers reporting directly to Parliament?
Chris Grayling
No one would condone that kind of treatment of any individual no matter who they are in our society. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I am sure will have been noted by Home Office Ministers.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Hull City Council is meeting at the moment to set its budget. Since 2010, it has had a cut from the Government of £310 per person, which, considering that it is the 10th most deprived area of the country, is one of the steepest cuts. In the same period, Epsom and Ewell, one of the least deprived areas, has gained £13 per head. Hull has none of the options that wealthier areas have to raise its own money, and has not received a penny of the £300 million that the Government have found for other areas. Can we please have a debate on why the poorest areas of this country keep being subject to cuts by this Government?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady needs to remember the huge disparities that still exist in funding per head. Targeting northern towns and cities such as Hull where there are bigger social challenges is important. As a Government, even a Conservative Government with a substantial number of Members representing constituencies in the south with a lower grant per head, we continue to believe that it is important to provide support to those towns and cities.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
The Government’s mobile infrastructure project identified 600 potentially new mobile mast sites, yet by December last year, only 15 had been built. May we have a full debate on the failure of the Government’s mobile infrastructure project, which is due to end in March, and on why so many communities that were promised mobile connectivity still lack it?
Chris Grayling
We are making real progress in spreading both mobile coverage and high-speed broadband coverage. We have a way to go. Of course such things are not always the responsibility of Government. It is the operators, not the Government, who build masts. None the less, I continue to believe that we are doing as well as almost all of our major international competitors in ensuring that we have modern communications.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On 7 November last year, I wrote to the BBC on behalf of a constituent with a set of perfectly reasonable questions about its musical output and its relationship with Universal Music. The response I got was, to say the least, disappointing. Not only did it fail to answer any of the questions, it told me that, if I was unhappy with its response, I should take up the matter with the Information Commissioner. I value the work that the BBC does, but it must be open about how it operates. May we have a debate on creating a transparent culture within the BBC, particularly in its relationship with publishers such as Universal Music?
Chris Grayling
Let me make two points. First, the hon. Gentleman can raise that issue next week when the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is in the House. Secondly, we are embarked on just such a debate at the moment on the renewal of the charter. It is for members of the public across the country and Members of this House to bring forward their thoughts about the future shape of the BBC. [Interruption.] Despite the fact that the shadow Leader of the House is, as usual, chuntering from a sedentary position, I have no doubt that, if the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) wants to bring forward further thoughts and present them to the Secretary of State, they will be taken into account.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It was welcome when the Government agreed to change the rules to allow for fair compensation for military veterans suffering from mesothelioma. However, if they are serious about the armed forces covenant, can we now have a statement on why they have still not closed the loophole whereby a small number of veterans diagnosed before December are not covered and are being caused further distress at this most difficult time in their lives?
Chris Grayling
I am not aware of that small number of cases. The Secretary of State is here on Monday, and I will ensure that he is aware of the hon. Lady’s concern. If she wants to bring that matter to him then, he will be able to give her a more detailed response.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Government’s childhood obesity strategy has been pre-briefed and then delayed not once but five times. The answers that I am getting from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who cannot even tell me whether he has seen a draft copy of the strategy, have been not worth the paper they are written on. May we have a statement as soon as possible outlining the Government’s intentions to publish the childhood obesity strategy and finally break this wall of silence from Ministers?
Chris Grayling
Of course it is the Government’s intention to publish the childhood obesity strategy, but we are also working on getting it right. I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that, when we come to publish that document, when it is ready and we are satisfied that it is the right tool for the job, we will bring it to the House.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Extraordinarily, the Prime Minister has made 233 appointments to the unelected House of Lords since he was elected, making a seam-bursting total of 826 Members, yet only yesterday many of us here received an email from the Boundaries Commission informing us of a forthcoming review of the Chamber to reduce the number of Scottish MPs from 59 to 53, which will result in the House of Lords being 40% larger than this House. Will the Leader of the House bring to this Chamber an urgent debate on the rough wooing of our democracy in Scotland, where we will have more Tory Lords than MPs apparently representing our country?
Chris Grayling
It is important to remember that this is the elected House. This is the House that ultimately has the final say on matters, and it is right and proper that we have a structure of representation here that represents the balance of the population of the country. It is the case that the Boundary Commission has a remit to align the size of constituencies across the country. That matter is not related to the other place. It is about ensuring that there is fairness of representation in this elected House, which is the one that ultimately decides what happens in this country.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
My constituent Andy is a freight train driver. He and his colleagues across 11 depots in Yorkshire and the north are under threat of redundancy following the downturn in coal traffic due to the imminent closure of Ferrybridge and Eggborough power stations and the closure of Kellingley pit. May we have a debate in Government time on the secondary impact of these closures, the unemployment that this Government have caused in the supporting industries such as freight, and how we might support those affected to find new and appropriate jobs?
Chris Grayling
Of course it is always difficult when an individual change within an industry costs jobs or leads to closures, but the hon. Lady has to understand that under this Government rail freight has continued to grow, the rail network has continued to receive new investment, and for those in the rail industry there are perhaps more opportunities today than there have been for a very long time.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Edward Paddon, the son of my constituents Fiona and Scott, was just nine days old when he died, in part as a result of group B streptococcus ascending infection. Instead of looking forward to what would have been Edward’s second birthday in a few months, his parents are campaigning so that others do not have to suffer as they have. May we have an urgent debate about what can be done to ensure consistent and accurate screening for group B strep so as to prevent any more avoidable deaths of newborn babies?
Chris Grayling
This is an important and sensitive issue on which there are many opportunities to bring forward debates through the Backbench Business Committee or the Adjournment debate system. As I should have mentioned earlier, we now have the largest petition we have yet seen calling for a debate on the Floor of the House relating to meningitis in childhood. I will be discussing it with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee because I hope that that petition is debated on the Floor of the House, rather than in Westminster Hall.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
May we please have a statement on today’s Ofcom review of Britain’s broadband needs? It pointed out that too many rural communities have a very poor broadband service. This Government must do better.
Chris Grayling
We have made good progress so far but there is still work to do. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be here next Thursday and will be able to update the House on progress. Compared with many other countries, we are doing pretty well, but as long as there are rural communities that do not have access to high-speed broadband and to modern communications, we will continue to have a job to do.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Two weeks ago the Leader of the House was unable to answer whether legislation to ratify the Istanbul convention would be laid before the House, citing the Queen’s Speech. If he and his merry men are successful in pulling us out of the EU, will the Government still have the appetite to ratify that Council of Europe convention which aids the protection of women, or do they plan to rescind membership of that organisation also?
Chris Grayling
I have no doubt that if the people of this country vote to leave the European Union, we will continue to play a very active role in the international bodies of which we are part and in the international community as a whole. Whatever happens regarding the future of this country, we will always be internationalists and we will always do the right thing by this country on the international stage.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
The incompetent Tory-Labour administration—a coalition running Stirling council—will present its budget this evening. That will include savage cuts to social care across the Stirling area. Given the pressures being put on local government finance by the Government’s austerity agenda and the welfare reforms, may we have a debate on this urgent matter?
Chris Grayling
The overall framework for economic success and for funding in Scotland rests with the SNP. The interesting thing about the fiscal framework this week is that the SNP Government will have to take decisions in the future about getting the right balance between lower taxes and public spending, and they will find that it is a whole lot more difficult than they think.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Farmers in my constituency tell me that the basic payments scheme has delivered late and is somewhat chaotic. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State on the performance of the Rural Payments Agency?
Chris Grayling
I am very happy to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. If he would like to write with specific details and examples, that will make it easier for Ministers to look into what is going wrong.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
May we have a debate or a statement on early-day motion 1138?
[That this House notes with serious concern proposals by the Government, published on 6 February 2016 on www.gov.uk, for a new clause to be inserted into all government grant agreements, determination letters, from the new financial year, and no later than 1 May 2016, which states that payments supporting activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, government or political parties, or attempting to influence the awarding or renewal of contracts and grants, or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory action will not be counted as Eligible Expenditure costs; further notes that the Government itself describes this as an anti-lobbying clause; shares the concerns expressed by many third sector and voluntary organisations outlined in a letter to the Prime Minister dated 11 February 2016, among them the impact the clause may have on the ability of voluntary organisation to bring real-world experience of service users and evidence-based expertise into the public policy debate, and that those organisations working on programmes receiving any grant funding may be prohibited from speaking to hon. Members about developments in their local area, suggesting improvements to policy or legislation, responding to the Government’s own consultations, meeting ministers to discuss broader issues and evidence from their programme or even from giving evidence if called by a select committee, and that the clause may therefore have a far broader impact than originally intended; believes the proposals leave the Government vulnerable to accusations of stifling criticism and informed debate about the consequences of its policies; and calls on the Government to urgently reconsider the introduction of this clause.]
It relates to the anti-lobbying clause—the gagging clause—announced by the Cabinet Office just before the recess, with little or no scrutiny or consultation. The clause threatens the ability of organisations and charities in receipt of Government grants to speak out or campaign either for or against Government policy. It should be scrapped immediately.
Chris Grayling
What the hon. Gentleman has to understand is that while in government we have found on a number of occasions bodies that we are funding using taxpayers’ money to lobby us, which makes no sense at all. The Cabinet Office is trying to deliver a sensible regime, and I am sure that he will be able to debate the provision in the way he wishes when it comes before the House.
Points of Order
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance in relation to a matter that is of some concern to me. It has been brought to my attention that on Monday, outwith my presence and without notifying me in advance, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) raised what he described as a point of order, during which he said that I had misled the House. I should make it clear that, notwithstanding his conduct, I have afforded him the courtesy of notifying him that I would be raising this point of order today.
On Monday afternoon I asked the Prime Minister what provision he would make in a British sovereignty Bill to recognise that the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle that has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. In the last part of my question I quoted directly the words of a distinguished and now deceased Scottish judge, Lord President Cooper, in the well-known Session case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate in 1953. The judge’s comments were obiter dicta—that is to say, an expression of opinion not essential to the decision—and therefore not legally binding as a precedent. However, they were an expression of his learned opinion and have been given due weight in the years since. Other distinguished Scottish jurists hold that view. As recently as 2005, in litigation concerning the Hunting Act 2004, Jackson v. Attorney General, Lord Hope of Craighead said in the House of Lords that parliamentary sovereignty is an English principle that Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone.
It is perfectly in order for the hon. Member for South Leicestershire to disagree with me, particularly if he can vouch his position, but it is not in order for him to say that I have misled the House, especially when I had taken trouble to use my words carefully and was quoting a well-known dictum from Scots law. As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, it is a matter of particular concern to me, given my professional background, that I should not be represented as having misled the House. I am keen to have your assistance in how the record might be put straight.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for notice of her point of order, of which, as she has informed the House, she has notified the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, I have to decide what is and is not in order; that is simply the constitutional position. I confirm that Members should indeed inform a colleague of an intention to refer to him or her. The point of order raised on Monday by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire was—I think I can so describe it—moderately orderly in form, although, as I noted, it was not orderly in content, and for one quite simple and straightforward reason: it was not a point of order. As a mere politics graduate, I do not intend to adjudicate between two learned Members—I know that the hon. and learned Lady is a distinguished QC—on obiter dicta by senior judicial figures, or to give a view from the Chair on Dicey. The hon. and learned Lady has made her point with characteristic force and eloquence. May I suggest that we leave it there?
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order regarding rules of behaviour and courtesies in this House. During Prime Minister’s questions yesterday—at a time when junior doctors are looking at yet another strike in England, and when Scotland may be dragged out of the EU unwillingly or unfairly, based on polls there on the Brexit—we had a spat between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about a mother’s opinions on behaviour and dress codes, yet SNP Members have been told off for clapping in the House. I raise the issue because we have had a huge number of complaints in the form of emails and phone calls from our constituencies. I wanted to ask for your advice on what the rules of behaviour should be and how they should be implemented, and also on whether the Prime Minister should give the House a full and proper apology for his conduct?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There is an important distinction here between the content of what is said and the way in which, more widely, hon. and right hon. Members behave. In respect of the first, may I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would not be right, or in any way favoured by the House, if the Chair, as a matter of regular course, were to try to intervene to prevent Members from expressing their own views with such examples, or references to people outside the House or to members of their families, as they think fit? I should not get involved in that, and the House would not want me to do so.
However, in respect of the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order—that is to say, on the overall notion of good behaviour—perhaps I can just repeat what I have many times said: the public expect us, or would want us at any rate, to conduct our arguments robustly and, doubtless, with passion, but with respect for the fact that different opinions exist. Loud heckling and organised barracking are widely deprecated outside this House. The notion that there is something clever about it, and that it is all very good fun, seems to me to be completely perverse, and I would very politely say, with no reference to any particular hon. Member, that perhaps all hon. Members, before indulging in noisy heckling, barracking or ad hominem abuse, should ask themselves this: would I be content for my behaviour to be seen and heard by my constituents? It is our constituents that we are here to serve. The point is so blindingly obvious that only a very clever and sophisticated person could fail to see it.
Perhaps we can leave the matter there for today, but I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I rather suspect that the flurry of emails that he might have received about conduct will not be an isolated case— I get quite a lot in my own office.
European Affairs
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered European affairs.
In just under four months’ time, the British people will face a choice—one that has been denied to them for many years—that we pledged to give them in our election manifesto and that we are now delivering; a choice that will have profound consequences for this country for a generation or more—whether to remain in the European Union on the basis of the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister or to leave.
The last time the British people were consulted on this question, 40 years ago, the answer was a clear yes, but much has changed in that 40 years, and the fact that we are holding this referendum now is recognition of a growing unease at the direction in which the EU has evolved—a growing sense that Europe was pursuing a goal that Britain did not share, and that we risked being dragged into a level of political integration for which few in Britain have any appetite.
For 25 years, I have shared that sense of unease. I have always considered myself a sceptic, and I consider myself a sceptic today. Like most people in Britain, I do not feel any warmth or affection for the EU or its institutions. I am irritated by the tone of much of what I hear coming from Brussels and instinctively suspicious of anything that sounds like a “grand projet”. But we do not live in some ideal world; we live in the real world, and the EU is part of that real world. The question that we have to answer is not: do we like it? The question we have to answer is whether we are stronger, safer and better off in the EU rather than out of it. Stronger, because our global influence is enhanced by being a leading member of the world’s largest trading bloc. Safer, because working together with EU partners strengthens our defences against organised crime and terrorism. Better off, because Britain benefits from having a domestic market of 500 million consumers and the clout that a quarter of the world’s GDP gives the EU in negotiating trade deals.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said in recent days that his view of the European Union’s impact on our collective security had changed over the years because of his experience as Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary would probably be thought of by many people as having a Eurosceptic background. Has his experience as Foreign Secretary also changed the balance of his view on the European Union’s impact on our collective security?
Mr Hammond
Yes, it has. First as Defence Secretary, and now as Foreign Secretary, I have seen how, in practice, working with EU partners is an important tool in our armoury. Of course, the EU will never, in any way, replace the security benefit that we get from NATO; it does a different thing. However, we have seen in the conflict over Ukraine that economic sanctions—which, in reality, are the only practical weapon available to us in responding to the challenge of Russia—when properly honed and consistently used by the European Union, will prove to be a very important weapon in our armoury against Russian aggression.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This Government have rightly been critical of previous Governments for not having an independent audit of our national finances, and they have set up the Office for Budget Responsibility. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. That was a very discordant noise—nothing like as mellifluous as the voice of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), to whom I know the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) will shortly be apologising.
Sir Edward Leigh
Well, back to my theme. We have set up the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Foreign Secretary is rightly doing a sort of cost-benefit analysis of this issue. Why do the Government not institute an independent study, by a genuinely independent body, to go in some detail into the effects of a Brexit, plus or minus, on, say, GNP? That would surely be very useful.
Mr Hammond
The problem with the challenge my hon. Friend presents—it is going to be a recurrent theme in this debate, I suspect—is that we simply do not know what the counterfactual is. We do not know what Britain’s situation outside the European Union would be. We do not know whether a deal could be negotiated with the remaining 27. We do not know what free trade agreements could be negotiated with other parties, and we do not know on what timescale those could be achieved. We do not know what damage would be done to our economy in the meantime. I fear that the objective analysis my hon. Friend is seeking might be very difficult to achieve.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is advancing the case of the economic benefit of Britain’s membership of the European Union, and he may like to hear the verdict from Britain’s manufacturing industry. Yesterday, at the Engineering Employers Federation, I took part in a debate with a senior member of the Vote Leave campaign, at the end of which 800 of Britain’s manufacturing companies voted by 83% that they would prefer Britain to stay in the European Union. That is what is happening in the real world among real people who make real things for Britain’s benefit.
Mr Hammond
I am unsurprised by the figure that my right hon. Friend quotes, because in the world of manufacturing, where supply chains are increasingly complex and internationalised, the operation of the single market, and particularly the operation of the customs union, will be increasingly important to the competitiveness of British businesses. There are substantive reasons that business can see for remaining in the European Union, but there is another reason over and above that: business hates uncertainty, and the one thing that is becoming crystal clear is that whatever the end state might be if there were a British exit, for a period of years—perhaps many years—there would be very significant uncertainty, and that would act as a chilling effect on investment, job creation and business confidence in the United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary is just a couple of minutes into his speech, but in the opening minute we heard a series of negative words used to describe our relationship with the European Union. I think I might have heard the words “suspicious” and “sceptical”. I wonder what our friends in France and Germany might be thinking as they watch this debate when somebody who is apparently in favour of our being members of the European Union is using such language. Coming from the in campaign, is this the type of debate that we can expect in relation to our relationship with Europe?
Mr Hammond
I think it is important that our friends and partners in Europe understand—I say this to my colleagues very regularly—that for the great majority of people in this country there is no passion about a European vision. We find in some European countries genuine passion for the idea of Europe, but that is not the British way. Lots of people in this country believe that we should remain in the European Union because it is good for Britain and good for our economy—because we are stronger, safer, and better off. That is not the same as being passionately attached to some idea of a European vision.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Hammond
I am going to make a little progress, if my right hon. and hon. Friends will allow me.
The PM’s pledge was to engage with our partners in Europe to agree a series of reforms to get the EU back on track and to change the terms of our membership to protect our interests, and then to put the question to the British people. He has delivered on that pledge.
Mr Hammond
I will in just a moment.
So the question is this: should we stick with what we know, bank the gains that the Prime Minister has brought back from Brussels, and continue to fight from the inside for reform, or should we take a leap into the dark? For me, the answer is clear: I am a sceptic who will vote with my head to remain because I know in my heart that that is what is right—what is best—for Britain.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I share the Foreign Secretary’s view that what the Prime Minister has returned with is better than what we had before, but will he say something about the legal of status of the agreement, particularly the assertion by the Lord Chancellor, no less, that it is not legally binding? I respect the fact that the Lord Chancellor takes a different view from the Prime Minister, but how can his position as a senior legal Minister for the Government possibly be tenable when he is arguing that the deal is not legally binding and the Downing Street position is the precise opposite? Surely his position is untenable and Cabinet collective responsibility has been stretched too far.
Mr Hammond
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the principle of collective responsibility has been suspended in respect of this debate to allow Ministers to express a different opinion from that of the Government. Our position is clear: this is a legally binding agreement. It was registered yesterday at the United Nations as a treaty. The overwhelming majority of qualified legal opinion recognises that it is a legally binding international law decision.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Hammond
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and then I must make a little progress.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain what effect registering the document at the UN has, and on what basis he says that any of this is legally binding?
Mr Hammond
I am not a lawyer, so it is not a question of the basis on which I say it is legally binding, but there has been a plethora of qualified legal opinion supporting the view that it is a legally binding decision. Registering it at the United Nations records it as a treaty-status international law obligation. The document will be taken into account by the European Court of Justice, whose own decisions in the Rottmann case have established that it must have regard to interpretative decisions by Heads of State and Governments. The document itself makes it clear that it is legally binding.
Mr Hammond
I am going to make a little progress.
Let me recall what we set out to achieve and what has been delivered. First, we set out to protect British jobs and ensure a level playing field in Europe for British business, because the creation of the eurozone and the greater level of co-ordination needed between eurozone countries created a very real risk either that non-Eurozone countries such as Britain would be dragged into integration that we do not need and do not want, or that our businesses would suffer discrimination because of our decision to retain our own currency. So alongside the crucial exemption from steps of further integration, we needed to negotiate clear safeguards for the pound, the exemption of British taxpayers from eurozone bailouts, protection against discrimination for Britain’s world-leading financial services industry, a clear role for the Bank of England, and a clear commitment that we will have a full say in the functioning of the single market while not being part of the single currency. This deal delivers all those demands in a legally binding agreement, underpinned by the commitment by all EU member states to enshrine those UK safeguards in treaty change.
Mr Hammond
I thought my hon. Friend might take his cue from my using the words “legally binding” again.
Sir William Cash
But what the Foreign Secretary is not doing is using other words that are part of this package—not only “legally binding” but “irreversible”. As he knows, the question of whether this is irreversible is highly contentious. It is clear from the evidence that has been received, and indeed from the European Scrutiny Committee’s report, that it is not irreversible.
Mr Hammond
I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. The decision is irreversible unless Britain chooses to allow it to be reversed, because it could be reversed only by all 28 member states agreeing. I can assure him that, certainly for as long as this Government are in office, Britain will never agree to that happening.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this morning’s BBC interview with the former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen was very useful? He explained that Denmark’s opt-outs with the European Union are based on exactly the same type of legal basis and have not been reversed in the years that they have been in place.
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady is exactly right. The Danish agreement has been in place for 23 years and continues to serve Denmark extremely well.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Hammond
I am going to make a little progress now.
The second area we set out to address was Europe’s impact on competitiveness. We have achieved a commitment to completing the European single markets in services—a key area for Britain given the importance and competitiveness of our services sector—in digital; in energy, to ensure greater competition and lower energy bills for British households; and in capital, ensuring greater access to sources of finance for our entrepreneurs. We have also delivered a clear commitment to prioritising international trade agreements with the largest and fastest-growing economies across the globe, with the potential to boost our economy by billions of pounds a year; and agreement to cut the burden of EU regulation on business, with specific targets to be set for key sectors. That builds on a programme of work that the Commission is already undertaking, which has already slashed by 80% the pipeline of regulatory proposals, and bakes the deregulatory approach into the DNA of the European Union.
The third area in which this deal delivers is in ending the abuse of the principle of free movement to work in order to access the benefits of our welfare system, which are paid for by hard-working British taxpayers. We have already ended access to unemployment benefits and social housing for new arrivals and limited their time in which to find a job to six months. The package agreed last Friday gives us new powers to exclude criminals from EU countries, and stops EU nationals dodging British immigration rules to bring family members from outside the EU to live in Britain.
Under this agreement, we can apply our rules, including on minimum income and English language competence. It ends the unfairness of child benefits at British rates being sent to children living in countries with much lower living costs, and it gives us a new seven-year emergency brake to ensure that EU migrants will not have full access to in-work benefits until they have been in the UK for four years, answering the perfectly reasonable question: why should people take out when they have not paid in? Under this new arrangement, they cannot do that—no more something for nothing. Taken together, this is a package that will address the concerns of the British people about abuse of our benefit systems and erosion of our immigration controls.
Mr Rees-Mogg
On child benefit, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the agreement does not meet the promise set out in the Conservative party manifesto, which said:
“If an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid”?
That has not been achieved. It is a failure.
Mr Hammond
As I have said before in this House, any reasonable person will look at the package that has been delivered. We have been clear from the outset that tackling abuse of our welfare system is about reducing the pull factor that makes the UK a target for inward migrants because they can get their wages topped up with a variety of benefits. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Although my hon. Friend can pick on a specific part of the package, I think that most reasonable people will want to look at it in the round.
Mr Hammond
Let me make a little progress. The fourth area in which this deal delivers concrete change is in protecting us from political integration under the mantra of “ever closer union”. The British people have never believed in political union and have never wanted it, and now there is a clear and binding legal commitment to a treaty change to ensure that the United Kingdom will never be part of it. That is a crucial change that alters fundamentally the UK’s relationship with the EU, setting out clearly, in black and white, that the UK’s destination will be different from that of the rest of the EU.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
The promise on child benefit was in our manifesto, so what will people think of the 2020 Conservative manifesto if we promise things we cannot deliver?
Mr Hammond
The Prime Minister gave a commitment to go to Brussels, to negotiate hard and to bring back the very best deal that he could achieve. That is what he has done. I think that people will look in the round at the commitments that were made and what has been delivered. In the end, it will be the British people who give their verdict on that package.
Patrick Grady
The Foreign Secretary has talked many times about the opinions of the British people, but does he not accept that there is a divergence of opinion across the United Kingdom, with a clear majority in Scotland in favour of remaining in the EU and considerably more sympathetic to the European project? I grew up in the Scottish highlands, where there are bridges and roads that simply would not exist without the gold-starred blue flag pinned alongside them. There is a lot more sympathy and appreciation among the people of Scotland for the positive things that the European Union has achieved.
Mr Hammond
This is a UK-wide question and a UK-wide referendum. I sincerely hope that when the dust has settled and the counting is done, the hon. Gentleman will discover that a significant majority of people across the United Kingdom believe that Britain is better off, stronger and safer inside the EU. When the debate plays out, however, I hope he has a stronger argument than, “They bunged us a few quid to build a road”, because, frankly, that is not a sustainable argument across the European Union as a whole.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Hammond
I am going to make a little progress. I am happy to take interventions, but in doing so I am conscious that I am eating into the time available for debate.
We have also set out to strengthen the powers of this Parliament and of the British people. In the last Parliament, we legislated, through the European Union Act 2011, to ensure that no more powers could be handed to Brussels without the explicit consent of the British people in a national referendum. That Act introduced a vital check on the one-way ratchet of the transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels.
This deal goes further, breaking the ratchet once and for all, with a new mechanism to return powers from Brussels to national Parliaments. For new legislation, the UK Parliament, working with the other national Parliaments, will be able permanently to block proposed EU legislation that a majority of them do not want, through a red card system.
The declaration, signed by all 28 member states, that we secured at the European Council last Friday is, as I have said, legally binding in international law and has already been registered as a treaty at the United Nations. Authoritative legal opinion is clear on this point. It cannot be undone without the consent of every single member state, including Britain. The agreement commits all member states to changes, in due course, to the EU treaties to enshrine the protections for Britain as a non-member of the eurozone, and to confirm explicitly that ever closer union does not apply to the UK.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time. He phrases himself incredibly carefully. He says, quite correctly, that the agreement is binding in international law, which is not justiciable, but it is not binding in European law, where it has only to be taken into account by the European Court of Justice. Nor is it irreversible, otherwise section A(7) could not say:
“The substance of this Section will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States.”
If it requires the respective constitutional procedures of the member states, that means that if they are not followed, it will not be implemented.
Mr Hammond
In the Rottmann decision, the ECJ itself made clear that it had to take account of a decision of this nature. I say to my hon. Friend and others who repeatedly make points about the legally binding nature of agreements that we are having a substantive debate about the future of Britain, in or out of the European Union. We have a package that has been agreed by all 28 countries and endorsed by their Heads of State and Government. It is not only legally binding, it is a solemn political commitment. I advise colleagues to address themselves to the substantive issues that we are debating, namely Britain’s place in the European Union and what the world would look like from the perspective of a Britain outside the EU.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I want to take the Foreign Secretary back to the serious substantive point that he made at the outset of his speech. He and the Prime Minister claim that somehow this deal enhances the security of Europe. By asserting that the EU has a role in the defence matters of Europe, they are going down an extremely dangerous line, playing into the hands of those such as Mr Juncker, supported by Chancellor Merkel, who want an EU army. There is a real risk that NATO will be undermined. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister should address that issue, rather than have a junior spin doctor in No. 10 twisting the arms of former senior military officers to sign a letter to The Daily Telegraph, from which two signatories have already resiled.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend, who served with me in the Ministry of Defence, will know that no one is as alert as I am to the risks of undermining NATO’s crucial role in underpinning the defence of western Europe. We have always been very clear that any role played by the European Union in our defence must be complementary to, and in no way undermine, the role of NATO. I remind him that, when we took part in the counter-piracy operation to interdict terrorists pirating ships crewed by British citizens off the coast of Somalia, it was led by a British admiral based in Northwood, but it was a European Union mission that carried out the task. We have to look for roles in which the European Union can augment our security and safety. We are seeing that across the piece in organised crime and counter-terrorism. We see it today, and we have seen it in past years.
Mr Hammond
I will make a little progress, if my hon. Friends will allow me.
These changes, taken together with our existing opt-outs from the euro, from Schengen and from justice and home affairs measures, give Britain a special status within the EU; indeed, it is a unique status. That gives us the best of both worlds: a seat at the table to protect our interests, but a permanent opt-out from those areas of the EU that we reject—out of ever closer union and political integration, out of Schengen, out of the euro and out of eurozone bailouts.
This is a significant package, delivering the substantial, legally binding and irreversible changes that we promised. But let me be clear: no one is suggesting that it solves all the problems of the EU. The deal is not the end of the reform of the EU, but it is an important step on the road.
No matter which side of the debate we are on, I hope that we will at least be able to agree across the House that the decision will be one of profound significance for the future of our country. It will be a choice that determines our trajectory for a generation or more. Let me be clear; the Government will respect the outcome of the referendum, whatever the result. There will be no second referendum. The propositions on the ballot paper are clear, and I want to be equally clear today. Leave means leave, and a vote to leave will trigger a notice under article 50. To do otherwise in the event of a vote to leave would represent a complete disregard of the will of the people. No individual, no matter how charismatic or prominent, has the right or the power to redefine unilaterally the meaning of the question on the ballot paper.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to make it clear that this is a one-time referendum and that the decision is in or out. If it is out, I think that the British people need to know what they would be going out to. Does he agree that it is about time the vote leave-ers set out precisely their vision of Britain outside the European Union?
Mr Hammond
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am about to come to that point. I hope that my remarks might provoke some of my hon. Friends to put some flesh on the bones of what leaving might mean. I will say something about the consequences of, respectively, a vote to leave the EU and a vote to remain.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr Hammond
Let me make my point, and then I will happily give way to my right hon. Friend. A vote to leave is a vote for an uncertain future. That is a simple fact. That uncertainty would generate an immediate and negative reaction in financial markets; on that, all market commentators agree. Indeed, the mere possibility of a leave vote will have a chilling effect on business confidence even before the referendum.
Mr Hammond
As the right hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position, we have had a foretaste of that this week in the currency markets.
A vote to leave would trigger a fixed two-year time period under the treaty for the UK to negotiate the terms of our exit from, and our future relationship with, the EU. We would, of course, seek to reach agreement with the other 27 member states during that two-year period. In the meantime, however, we would be able to offer British businesses that wanted to invest no assurance at all about their future access to EU or other markets. We would have nothing to say to Japanese, American or Chinese companies that come here looking for a base from which to produce for the EU market. That would be truly a leap in the dark, and the effect would be to put the economy on hold until the negotiations were completed. At the end of those two years, there is no guarantee that agreement would have been reached, but our exit would be automatic unless every single one of the remaining member states agreed to an extension of the negotiating period.
Nick Herbert
My right hon. Friend is rightly drawing attention to the potential impact of Brexit on our economy, but may I take him back to the issue of security? It was suggested earlier that there would be no adverse consequences for security from our leaving the European Union, because we would remain members of NATO. Did he hear the remarks this morning of the former Secretary-General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who said:
“If the UK were to leave the European Union, the voice of the UK would be weakened”?
He concluded:
“I would strongly regret if Britain were to leave the European Union. A lot is at stake when it comes to security.”
Should we not listen to former Secretaries-General of NATO, as well as to former military commanders, and have some respect for their views?
Mr Hammond
Mr Fogh Rasmussen is not merely a former Secretary-General of NATO, but a former Prime Minister of Denmark. That country can tell us something about the binding and enduring nature of protocols that are made in EU negotiations. It is important to acknowledge that security comes in different parts: military security and defence, but also security against organised crime and against terrorism. The EU makes its most important contribution to our overall security in the latter two.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary invokes article 50. Before notification was given under article 50, given that the referendum is an advisory one in terms of the constitution, would there be a vote in Parliament? Would there also be a vote in the Scottish Parliament, given the impact on devolved competencies under the Sewel convention?
Mr Hammond
The Government’s position is that the referendum is an advisory one, but the Government will regard themselves as being bound by the decision of the referendum and will proceed with serving an article 50 notice. My understanding is that that is a matter for the Government of the United Kingdom, but if there are any consequential considerations, they will be dealt with in accordance with the proper constitutional arrangements that have been laid down.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I rather concur with the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), because I think that before the Government could move to any action as a consequence of the referendum, it would be essential for Parliament to debate the matter and for the Government to obtain consent from Parliament.
On the question of what happens if we leave, may I enlighten the Foreign Secretary? First, there is no obligation to go for article 50. Secondly, we would be taking back control over our borders, our laws and the £10 billion a year net that we give to the European Union. It would buy us plenty of options, which the Government seem determined to prevent us from even discussing.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend raises again the suggestion that there is no need to treat an exit vote as triggering a notice under article 50. He seems to suggest that there is some other way of doing it. He raised the question on Monday and I looked into it, because he caught my imagination, but I have to tell him that that is not the opinion of the experts inside Government and the legal experts to whom I have talked. We are bound by the treaty until such time as we have left the European Union. The treaty is a document of international law, and Ministers are obliged under the terms of the ministerial code to comply with international law at all times.
The UK’s current access to the single market would cease if we left the EU, and our trading agreements with 53 countries around the world would lapse. It is impossible to predict with any certainty what the market response would be, but it is inconceivable that the disruption would not have an immediate and negative effect on jobs, on business investment, on economic growth and on the pound. Those who advocate exit from the EU will need to address those consequences—the substantive consequences, of the kind that the British people will be most focused on—in the weeks and months of debate to come.
I want to say something about the environment in which the putative negotiations would be conducted, because it is crucial to understand how difficult the discussion would be.
Over the past 18 months, I have got to know pretty well my EU counterparts, and in many cases their senior officials, as well as the opposition figures in most of their countries and key figures in the Commission and the European Parliament. There is, perhaps surprisingly, an overwhelming consensus among them about the importance of Britain remaining a member of the EU. However, they, too, are politicians: they, too, have constituents to whom they are having to explain, even now, why Britain adds so much value to the EU that it has to be allowed a unique and privileged set of arrangements that are not available to any other member state. They have, collectively, already invested a lot of political capital in delivering on Britain’s agenda. I tell the House, frankly, that if we reject the best-of-both-worlds package that has been negotiated by the Prime Minister and if we reject the unique and privileged position in the European Union that is on offer to Britain, the mood of good will towards Britain will evaporate in an instant. That would be our negotiating backdrop. To those who say they would have to negotiate—
Mr Hammond
I will in a moment, but this is important. People are talking about a negotiation that we might have to have with 27 other member states, and it is important to think about the mindset of those 27 other member states as they go into such a negotiation. To those who say that they would have to negotiate a sweetheart trade deal with a UK outside the EU, I say this: there will be no desire at all among the political elites of the remaining 27 member states to help an exiting Britain show that it can prosper outside the EU. On the contrary, they will interpret a leave decision as two fingers from the UK, and we can expect precisely the same in return. The idea that they will go the extra mile to ensure that Britain can remain a destination for foreign direct investment to serve the EU market or that our financial services industry can compete in the European market on a level playing field is, frankly, fantasy land.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard
I am showing respect, and I am sure my hon. Friend would want to show respect as well. I think if you insult people, you have a weak argument.
Does not the United Kingdom have a veto over foreign policy in Europe? If we were to leave the European Union, the United Kingdom would have less influence, by definition, on European Union foreign policy, and it would be more likely that European Union foreign policy was dominated, for good or bad, by France and Germany.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is right. These are the complexities: obviously, if we were outside the European Union, we would not be bound by any foreign policy of the European Union, but, equally, we would not have any influence and, in this case, that influence is decisive because of our veto over that policy. It is a judgment, and people will have to weigh up the pros and cons.
Richard Drax
The Foreign Secretary used the expression “the political elites”. He slipped into using it just naturally. The political elites are the main problem, because they ignore the voter. If that goes on, it will just happen more and more.
Mr Hammond
Rather to my surprise, I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall use the phrase “the political elites” again in my speech, because he is absolutely right: there is a gap between what the political elites in some European countries are thinking and what their voters are thinking. However, on the subject we are discussing—a putative negotiation on Britain’s future relationship with the European Union—the reality is that our negotiators would have to engage with those political elites.
Mr Hammond
I will in a moment, but I want to make a little more progress.
In addition, any market access we agreed with our former EU partners would come at a very high price. We know that because we know what the basic models are for access to the single market for non-EU member states. We can look at Norway: pay up as if you were a member state, accept all the rules as if you were a member state, allow full free movement across your borders as if you were a member state, but have no say, no influence and no seat at the table; or Switzerland: spend eight years—
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend says it is silly, but it is a fact that that is where Norway is today. It is a fact that it took Switzerland eight years to negotiate piecemeal access to the single market sector by sector, and it has had to accept three times as many EU migrants per capita as the UK. That surely cannot be the future for Britain that the leave campaign seeks: it is literally the worst of both worlds.
Mr Nigel Evans
I am interested to know my right hon. Friend’s judgment on the character of our fellow EU countries. Is he really saying that Germany would be so vindictive and spiteful that it would cut off its nose to spite its face? According to a House of Commons Library paper, we export £43.3 billion of goods and services to Germany and it exports £70.6 billion of goods and services to us, which is a deficit of £27.3 billion. Is he really saying that Germany is so vindictive and spiteful that it would close its door to that?
Mr Hammond
I want to make two points in response to my hon. Friend. He is of course absolutely right that Britain has a substantial deficit in trade in goods with the European Union. If all he is seeking is a free trade agreement for trade in goods—
Mr Hammond
I am talking about trade in goods. If that is all my hon. Friend is seeking, it would be relatively simple to negotiate, but Britain will need much more than that if we are to get a fair deal for Britain’s businesses and to protect British jobs.
I want to make another point to my hon. Friend. He is of course right that economic and business voices from across Europe would argue for a free trade deal of some description with the UK. However, the political elites would look over their shoulder at the effect of a British exit and at their political opponents in their own country, and they would be fearful that what they see as contagion might spread. They do not wish to do anything that would help us to demonstrate that Britain can succeed outside the European Union. That is a simple political fact. Everyone in the Chamber is a politician, and we all know how such a calculation works: when the chips are down, they will protect their political interests.
Emma Reynolds
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that those who advocate that we leave express a big inconsistency? On the one hand, they say, “When we are in the European Union, we can’t get anything we want”, but on the other hand, they say, “If we come out of the European Union, we will have precisely what we want”.
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady has put her finger on it. That is what this debate will hinge on. Those who propose that we remain argue that we should stick with a proposition we know and understand, and lay on top of that the additional benefits that the Prime Minister has gained for us in the negotiation. Those who propose that we leave do not know—because they cannot know—what they are proposing to the British people. They can tell us what they would like to achieve and what they would hope to negotiate, but by definition they cannot know until afterwards and the British people cannot know until afterwards what proposition they would be voting for.
Mr Hammond
No. I want to move on to setting out what I see as the consequences of Britain deciding to remain.
If Britain decides to remain a member of the EU, I want it to do so with the mindset of a leader. Having renegotiated the terms of our membership and secured the protections we need against further integration, we need to be a loud voice in the EU. We need to exercise our influence as Europe’s second largest economy and the recognised leader of its reform movement. We need to stop seeing ourselves as passive victims of the EU, and start to see Britain for what it is—one of the most powerful and influential member states, and one to whom others look for leadership in keeping the EU on track as a competitive, outward-looking, free-market union that is engaged with the challenges of a globalised economy.
We can take on that role because Europe is changing. There was a time when Britain, with its sceptical approach to the European project, really was in a minority of one, but the political balance across the EU is shifting away from an unquestioning acceptance of the inevitability of “more Europe” to an engaged scepticism—a desire for the EU to focus on where it can add value, leaving the member states to get on with their own business where it cannot; and a recognition of the benefits of membership, with an increasing focus on the costs and a healthy pragmatism about the limits to what the EU can deliver. In Denmark, Finland, Poland, Hungary and other Baltic and eastern European member states, we increasingly find like-minded partners who share our vision of Europe. Even in the Netherlands, one of the founder member states, the mood has shifted sharply. In that country, there is a slogan that rather neatly sums up what I think most people in Britain think about the EU: “National where possible, Europe where necessary.” Across the continent, the population, as opposed to the political elites, has become more sceptical about the EU and more focused on the need for reform and accountability.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
On the very point that the Foreign Secretary has just made, has he noticed that an increasing number of EU member states are looking enviously at the deal that Britain has managed to secure—I will leave the qualitative judgment to others—and seeing that this is a route that they want to take advantage of, because there is a huge appetite for reforming the European Union to ensure that it serves the people of Europe and not just the political elite?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is right and that is my case: Britain can lead that reformist tendency within the European Union, which is subscribed to by more and more member states and by the populations in even more member states where the political elites have not yet woken up to the new reality.
Let us be clear with our neighbours that although the package agreed in Brussels last week is a big enough step forward to allow us to recommend to the British people staying in the EU on these special terms, they should not for a moment imagine that a UK recommitted to EU membership will rest on its laurels. They should expect to deal with a UK that fights continuously at the head of a growing phalanx of like-minded member states to keep the EU on the track of reform and competitiveness. They should expect us to police rigorously the delivery of the promises that have been made on deregulation, the repatriation of power, eurozone fairness, single market progress and trade agreements.
The choice for Britain is simple: a leading role in a reformed EU or a leap in the dark to negotiate from a position of weakness with the 27 member states we have just snubbed; driving the expansion of the single market and EU trade agreements from within or watching from outside as the rules of the market are shaped by the interests of others.
The special status that Britain has on offer means that we can have the best of both worlds. We can be in the parts of Europe that work for us and permanently out of those that do not. We can influence the decisions that affect us, shape the world’s largest market and co-operate to keep Britain safe, strong and better off, with the status of our pound and the Bank of England guaranteed and our exclusion from eurozone bail-outs confirmed. We will be out of the passport-free Schengen area and permanently protected from further steps of integration towards a European superstate, and new commitments will be made and mechanisms established to reduce burdens on business and return powers to member states. Of course there is more to do, but as we move towards the referendum, this Government have no doubt that on these terms, the United Kingdom is safer, stronger and better off inside a reformed European Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The House has tested the Foreign Secretary with a great many interventions this afternoon, and he has been patient and courteous in answering them fully, but it has taken considerable time. I warn hon. Members who have in their heads or in their hands long speeches that they intend to deliver that I will have to impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of nine minutes later in the day.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Almost 41 years ago, this House debated the terms of a renegotiation of our place in Europe prior to a referendum of the British people. On 7 April 1975, this is what the opening speaker in that debate said:
“for many hon. Members, as for millions outside the House, the issue is not limited to an assessment of the outcome of the renegotiations. Many…have already made up their minds…There will be a substantial body of opinion…who believe…that Britain should be in the Community for the greater economic good of Britain in a changing world…Equally there is a substantial body of opinion which is fundamentally opposed to British membership and which holds that no possible renegotiations could have changed the nature of the Community sufficiently to enable it to support British participation.”—[Official Report, 7 April 1975; Vol. 889, c. 821.]
Those were the words of the Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who, incidentally, gave the British people a decision about their place in Europe. Those words remind us that some things never change, although then it was the Labour party that was split over our place in Europe and the Conservatives who were united, whereas now there has been a complete reversal of roles. History is repeating itself in mirror image.
Sir Edward Leigh
As we are talking about history, can we at least agree that the right hon. Gentleman’s late, lamented and great father and Enoch Powell were right during those historic debates in the early 1970s that this was a unique endeavour and that what we were signing up to in the European Communities Act 1972 was quite unlike any other treaty, because it established the supremacy of the European Court of Justice over this House? Can we at least agree that there is no halfway house—we are either under EU law or we are not? That is what this referendum is about.
Hilary Benn
Indeed, that is the case. The Labour party—not the Conservative party—decided that the British people should have their say precisely because that kind of transfer of sovereignty is a decision that should rest not with this House of Commons, but with the British people. The British people made their choice and decided by a significant margin to remain in the European Community.
I was about to mention the Prime Minister’s reception on Monday. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) is fond of describing some right hon. and hon. Members as the “desperate to be disappointed”. It is fair to say that on Monday, those people were indeed disappointed, because they were never going to be satisfied.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman gives the impression that the Labour party is completely united in its position, but that excludes the public statements of some of his colleagues that they are in favour of leaving the European Union and the many Labour organisations around the country that are already campaigning for us to pull out.
Hilary Benn
I am not sure that I will bow to the hon. Gentleman’s alleged greater knowledge of the opinion of Labour organisations up and down the country on the European Union. Labour Members of the House of Commons overwhelmingly support Britain remaining in the European Union, as we shall hear in their contributions later, and in the trade union movement there is strong support for Britain remaining, for reasons that I shall come to later. The truth is that we have changed our view, and that strengthens our argument for remaining in the European Union.
The Prime Minister was never going to come back with a deal that he did not feel able to recommend because, as we know, he did not want the referendum in the first place and was forced to concede it only by the turmoil and disagreement on his Benches. The deal does contain some useful and important changes, some of which we called for. The red card, as the Leader of the Opposition reminded the House on Monday, was a commitment in our election manifesto. There is protection for the pound because we are not in the euro, and it was the last Labour Government that took the decision not to join the euro—and how wise a decision was that? We support reforming the sending of child benefit to children living in other European countries, and the establishment of the principle of fair contribution, namely that those coming to work in this country should pay in before they receive in-work benefits.
The choice that the British people now face will rest not on the terms of this renegotiation, but on something much bigger and more important: how will our economy and trading relationships, and our prospects for investment, be affected by taking a step into the unknown; how do we see ourselves as a country; and what is our place in the world and in Europe now and in the years ahead?
Patrick Grady
What is the Labour party’s position on whether it would be appropriate for Scotland to be taken out of the European Union against its will?
Hilary Benn
The Labour party’s position is to respect the decision that the Scottish people took in the referendum when they rejected independence. We are one United Kingdom, and the decision will be taken by the people of the United Kingdom. Labour Members are clear that we support Britain remaining a member of the European Union. We held that view before the renegotiation, and we hold it today. The European Union has brought us jobs, growth, investment and security, and I argue that it gives us influence in the world. Before exploring each of those benefits in turn, let me briefly address two essential arguments made by those Conservative Members who think that we should leave—namely, sovereignty and taking back control.
Sir Gerald Howarth
The right hon. Gentleman said that the EU has brought much in the way of prosperity and jobs, and that does apply to the United Kingdom. Sadly, however, it does not apply to other countries such as Spain, Portugal and Greece, which are also members of the EU. Why are they suffering so much unemployment and low growth, while the United Kingdom is prospering? Is the difference that we, as well as being members of the EU, are led by a Conservative Government?
Hilary Benn
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman will not tempt me to agree with him on that particular observation at all—[Hon. Members: “Go on!] No, I will not be encouraged to do that. I will, however, make an argument about the precise way that the benefits that I have just described have been brought to us because of opportunities given to us by membership of the European Union.
On sovereignty, the original decision to join the European Union was taken by the sovereign House of Commons, and confirmed by a sovereign British people in the 1975 referendum. All treaty changes that followed, including those that introduced qualified majority voting, were agreed by Conservative and Labour Governments, and approved by the sovereign Parliament. That tells us that we have chosen as a sovereign Parliament to work with others in Europe for a purpose: to achieve things that we think benefit us and our neighbours.
The second argument is about taking back control, and for some I think this is a belief that Britain standing alone would somehow have the voice that it possessed 50 years ago. We must be honest with each other. We live in a different world to the one that gave birth to the European Coal and Steel Community after the end of the second world war. We have witnessed the end of empire, the creation of the United Nations and the European Union, the formation of NATO, the end of the cold war, and the collapse of the Berlin wall. We have lived through an era that has seen the rise of new world powers, alliances, conflicts, threats, and the blistering pace of technological change that is revolutionising our economies and shrinking the way we perceive our world. We cannot turn the clock back, and to argue that we can is to mislead ourselves and others. We can, however, use the qualities that we as a nation are blessed with to make the most of the opportunities that this new world presents to us, and that is exactly what our membership of the European Union helps us to do.
Look at the strength of London as a financial centre. Look at the openness and diversity of our society, and our talent for creativity. The UK computer and games industry—not one I am particularly familiar with—did not even exist 40 years ago, but it now generates £2 billion a year in global sales, and supports nearly 30,000 jobs. Consider the worldwide reach of the English language. All those things help to make us the fifth biggest economy in the world.
Mark Pritchard
When we think about the City of London, we often think of bankers, and unfortunately of some of the high and perhaps disproportionate banking bonuses. However, banking is a necessary part of this country’s economy. Indeed, the pensions of this country are often found in the City of London, and they affect every single person up and down the land. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an exit from the European Union would make it more likely that banks, institutions and pension funds would go to Frankfurt rather than London?
Hilary Benn
I agree that there are real risks, and the Foreign Secretary rightly made that point in his speech. It is perfectly legitimate to point out those risks, which even the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) acknowledged in his article in The Daily Telegraph, and we should take that important consideration into account. In truth, almost half our exports go to Europe precisely because we are part of the single market, and we must think about supply chains and services. We also export all the way around the world, in part because of deals that the European Union has negotiated with other countries.
The EU either has or is negotiating trade agreements with 90% of Commonwealth countries. I have heard it argued that being in the EU prevents us from having better trading relationships with other members of the Commonwealth, but that is not the case. Given that we are part of this huge market of 500 million people, why on earth would we want to exchange the certainty of deals that we currently have for the uncertainty of deals that we might not secure? As we have heard—the Foreign Secretary made this point forcefully—we already have good trade deals, and our only alternative examples are those such as Norway, but even the Norwegians say to us, “I wouldn’t do that if I were you.” I think the British people will look at that and say, “That looks like a pretty bad deal to us.”
In the late 1980s, when Mrs Thatcher was busy taking away trade union rights in this country, one reason that the British trade union movement changed its view was that it saw there was an opportunity for workers’ rights across Europe. The EU helped us to deal with some of the consequences of global change by protecting workers in every European country. Those protections include paid holidays, the right to spend more time with a new-born child through improved maternity and paternity leave, limits on working time, and better protection for agency and temporary workers. Those are striking examples of how, by working together across Europe, we can protect workers and prevent a race to the bottom.
Daniel Kawczynski
The right hon. Gentleman has campaigned for many years on behalf of Africa and trade with Africa, supporting prosperity there. What does he say about the protectionist policies of the European Union, which prohibit and make trade with Africa more difficult?
Hilary Benn
When I was International Development Secretary I argued precisely that Europe should change its policies, including the common agricultural policy. I shall say something about development a little later in my speech, because that too is a really strong argument for remaining part of the European Union.
Mr McFadden
Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the list of employment rights that are guaranteed at EU level, it is important to point out that when those who would take us out of the European Union attack EU red tape and bureaucracy, they are usually talking about precisely those rights. For example, the right to equal treatment as a part-time worker and so on—those are measures of justice in the workplace, not needless bureaucracy.
Hilary Benn
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, when one of the Ministers who advocates Britain’s exit from the European Union was asked on television at the weekend to provide an example of red tape, he referred to health and safety. Health and safety is not red tape, a burden or regulation; it is about protecting British, German and Spanish workers when they go to work in the morning, to make sure that they can do their jobs safely and securely. If we voted to leave, we could end up with a double nightmare. Unfortunately, there would still be a Conservative Government in this country and, given past records, I am not entirely sure that I would trust them to ensure that we keep the rights we currently have.
There is an even more important reason why we should remain a member of the EU: Britain’s influence in the world is strengthened by our membership. It promotes interdependence through trade and advances our economic security, because it works to tackle conflict and other global challenges, and it helps to protect us from crime and terrorism. There is nothing patriotic about diminishing the United Kingdom’s ability to make its voice heard by other nations. Stumbling out of Europe and pulling up the drawbridge would serve only to harm our position and influence in the world.
The global economic crash of 2007-08 shook the public’s faith in the ability of Governments, regulators and institutions to protect them. What it really brought home to us is the need for more, not less, co-operation with other countries, and stronger multilateral institutions, not weaker ones. If we are going to deal with the problem of big companies that show an aversion to paying tax, Europe is a very good place to start.
We should also acknowledge that the growth in the number of member states of the EU has been a very powerful force for change for the better on our continent. The prospect of membership offered the former communist states of central and eastern Europe a really powerful incentive to meet the conditions for joining. They were creating an alliance built on the values of democracy, respect for human rights, free media, the rule of law and individual freedom. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, that also helped us to be stronger in facing up to aggression and problems around the world. There is no doubt that the sanctions agreed against Russia have had an impact. They are biting. Although the Minsk agreement has not been fully implemented—the conflict is frozen—it was precisely because Europe was united and determined that we were able to have that impact. Let us be absolutely clear: Russia would see Britain’s exit from the EU as a sign of our weakness. It would see it as a sign of European weakness at the very moment when, in the face of that threat, we need to maintain our collective strength. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) wants to intervene, I will of course give way.
The deal with Iran is another really good example. Europe came together in solidarity and achieved something that many people thought would not be possible. We have heard reference to the action, through Operation Atalanta, to deal with piracy off the horn of Africa. Look at the sanctions on Burma. We are just about to see something we never thought possible: Aung San Suu Kyi’s party taking power by democratic change. Europe’s voice in saying that what the previous regime had done was not acceptable was a powerful force for good in the world.
These collective displays of solidarity remind us of the power, working with our European allies, to do good. I have to say the current problems in Syria remind us of our failure in that particular conflict.
Wes Streeting
In the event of a leave vote, there are only two possibilities: either we want to remain part of a single market and are therefore subject to pretty much exactly the same rules as we are now, in which case what is the point of the referendum; or we seek not just to realign our trading approach towards the rest of the world, but realign British foreign policy away from the democracies of western Europe and the north Atlantic to the dictatorships of the east. Surely that would not be either in our national interests or in the interests of western liberal democracy. I cannot understand why so many Conservative Members, who expect us to go out to bat for Britain at European Council summits, somehow expect our fellow European states to do otherwise in the event of a leave vote, in which case we will be punished.
Hilary Benn
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I have just tried to demonstrate to the House the benefit that working with our European allies in trying to be a force for good in the world has brought. I was just in the process of saying that Syria is a terrible example of the world’s collective failure. Like the Foreign Secretary, in his comments at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday, we hope very much that the ceasefire will be implemented and upheld. However, that really depends on Russia, hence the point that I was making earlier.
What every single one of these examples teaches us is that we need stronger, not weaker, international co-operation. At this moment in this century, it would be extraordinary folly for our country to turn its back on this vital international alliance if we wished to help shape world events. That is why Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO, said:
“Britain is a global player and a strong EU will also make sure that NATO has a strong partner in the European Union when we are facing the same security threats”.
Hilary Benn
I will give way one more time, but then make progress because other Members want to speak.
Sir William Cash
On the broader foreign policy question in relation to Russia and all that, would the shadow Foreign Secretary like to comment on whether he thinks the Budapest agreement in the 1990s was a good idea?
Hilary Benn
To be perfectly honest, I am less interested in what happened in the 1990s. I am more interested in what is going to happen in 2016, which is the big decision that the British people will have to take. I argue that our national security is served by our membership of both the EU and NATO. Co-operation across Europe is essential if we are to deal with terrorist threats. The European arrest warrant is a really good example of that. The case of the failed 21 July 2005 bomber who was returned here from Rome, where he had sought to escape British justice, demonstrates the benefit of working with our allies. That is why the director of Europol, Rob Wainwright, warned recently that British exit would
“make Britain’s job harder to fight crime and terrorism because it will not have the same access to very well developed European cooperation mechanisms that it currently has today”.
Hilary Benn
No, I am going to try to bring my remarks to a close.
Underlying all those questions is the greatest challenge that the peoples and countries of the world face at the beginning of the 21st century: how do we come to terms with, and deal with, the interdependence of human beings?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On that point, and as it is the first time I have tried to intervene, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Hilary Benn
Since it is the hon. Lady I will give way, and then I am going to bring my remarks to a close.
Caroline Lucas
That is incredibly kind of the right hon. Gentleman. Just before he does bring his remarks to a close, I wonder whether he agrees about the importance of the EU when it comes to the environment. That has not been mentioned yet today, rather oddly, but the cross-border nature of environmental degradation means our involvement in the EU is more important than ever on everything from clean beaches, clean air, clean seas and a clean world.
Hilary Benn
I agree absolutely with the hon. Lady. The blue flag beaches are a really good example. We will not have clean beaches in Britain if we are not dealing with sewage coming from other European countries and vice versa. I shall make a point about climate change in a moment, on which Europe is absolutely vital.
The House is only too well aware that there are 7.2 billion people in the world, with 11 billion forecast by the end of the century. If we look at what has been happening on our continent in the past few months, we see the flow of refugees and Schengen under strain. That has tested Europe’s solidarity to the limit, but let us pause for a moment and imagine what the situation would be like now if the European Union did not exist. The truth is that it does not matter whether people are moving across the globe to flee persecution for a better life or to flee climate change. We are still going to have to deal with the consequences. We have not just a moral interest in dealing with climate change, poverty and conflict; we have a practical interest in doing so. From my experience as a Cabinet Minister, I can say that the fact that European countries came together in the run-up to Gleneagles and said, “This is what we are prepared to commit to” helped to unlock commitments on more aid and debt relief for the developing world. The fact that Europe went to climate change summit after climate change summit with a commitment it was prepared to put on the table, in the end, helped to unlock the deal in the Paris.
The final argument, which was the founding argument of the European project, is the fact that it has brought peace to a continent that for hundreds of years was scarred by war. Anyone who has walked along the rows of graves from the first and second world wars—what I would describe as the flower of two generations of Europeans—will see that some bear names and show how young they were. On other graves, there is no name at all. The gravestone simply reads, “A soldier of the Great War. Known unto God”. Nobody knew whose father, uncle, nephew or brother lay beneath those immaculately tended graves.
The one disagreement I have with the Foreign Secretary was when he said he felt no passion for Europe. I think we should be passionate about the greatest achievement of the European project, which was that by bringing nations together, originally through coal and steel, we would make future war, in the words of the Schuman declaration,
“not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.”
The British people have to make a choice between the fear that we have somehow lost our identity, our influence and our place in the world because we are part of the European Union, and our experience that being in Europe has actually amplified, extended and increased Britain’s voice in the world, through which process the British people have benefited economically.
I have changed my views since 1975. I have been on a journey, and the party of which I am proud to be a member has been on a journey. We live in a changing world and if we look at that world, we see that the case for Europe is stronger now than ever. The story of Britain over the last century is one of a nation that has been at the heart of world affairs. It is the story of a country that has been at its best when we have been outward looking and confident. In the 20th century, we helped to build the institutions that have given us the chance to make progress: the UN, NATO and the EU. In the 21st century, we cannot reduce our influence—we cannot shut the curtains, close the door and hope that the rest of the world will go away.
This choice is ultimately about whether we face the future with optimism, or not. I believe that Britain’s national interest is best served by remaining part of the European Union, and I hope that the British people will come to that decision, too. It is now their choice.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Let me first congratulate the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on their speeches. I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister and his negotiating team on their courage and tenacity. I include especially my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who had to bear much of the heat and burden of the day. This was a remarkable achievement, and I wish it well. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, it is now for the British people to have their say, and have their say they will.
This is the 70th anniversary year of Churchill’s speech on the cause of a united Europe at Zurich on 19 September 1946. It has always struck me as ironic that that speech has been claimed by both sides of the European argument as being some sort of holy grail. I am daily on the receiving end of some vile emails and whatnot from people telling me that I am a traitor to my grandfather’s memory.
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. May I say that although I disagree with him profoundly on this issue, I regard him with the utmost respect? He has held these views for a very long time with complete sincerity, and people disgrace themselves by their insults.
Sir Nicholas Soames
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.
Of course, Churchill’s was a speech of great prescience and great vision. It was also a speech of the most profound analysis. Unlike most other hon. Members, I would like to reflect at a little more distance on Britain’s experience of the European Union and, in particular, my party’s long-standing commitment to the European cause.
It is worth the House reflecting for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the tragedy of what Europe must have looked like in 1945. It is only the winking of an eye in terms of time and history. It was only 71 years ago that the Germans surrendered to the allies and signed the instrument of surrender. It was only 70 years ago that the Russians drew down the iron curtain on a broken and suffering eastern Europe. Behind that line, in the wicked grip of a ruthless regime, lay all the great capitals and states of eastern Europe—Warsaw, Prague, Berlin, Bucharest and Sofia.
Most of the rest of continental Europe lay shattered and broken, after six years of war, for the second time in 25 years. There remained a vast mass of bewildered human beings, who gazed forlornly at the wreckage of their homes, their nations, their lives, their families, their possessions and everything that they loved. But from that awful scene of desolation, sadness, ruin and despair a little over 70 years ago, something truly remarkable has been achieved, which has brought freedom, security and prosperity way beyond the dreams that anyone alive at the time could ever have contemplated.
Not only have the sovereign states of Europe risen, phoenix-like, from the ashes of two world wars, but they have created of their own free will a European Union of 28 members comprising the biggest and most powerful single market in the world—one of 500 million people—in which we travel with our fellow Europeans in prosperity and peace in an era of constantly expanding co-operation, prosperity, security, safety and freedom.
When the cold war ended and the Berlin wall came down on that glorious, cold 9 November 1989, the Warsaw pact collapsed into dust without a shot being fired. Most of the eastern European countries joined the European Union, and most of them also joined NATO. Indeed, only six countries that are members of the European Union are not members of NATO.
Why did they join? They did so because the Europe and the NATO that they joined were and are prosperous, secure and free, and they wanted as soon as they could to find shelter in the institutions that had benefited from a period of peace, stability, freedom and security unprecedented in 1,000 years of European history. They hoped that it would protect them from a still predatory Russia. There is no argument but that the EU was absolutely central to those developments, and it is a very great credit to our country that we should have played such a leading role in seeing all this through.
The European Union has achieved a very great deal, but it cannot and it must not allow itself any self-congratulation in these very difficult times. Although we can see that the ice has melted on the landscape of the second half of the last century, and that power in all its forms has shifted and is shifting rapidly and unpredictably, we know how inadequately most of the institutions of the European Union have coped. This must be remedied.
As we look across Europe at all the achievements it has to its name, the pervasive mood is one of insecurity, lack of confidence and lack of optimism. Those characteristics are not found only in Europe. The troubles of Governments everywhere speak to the anxieties of their electorates and, sadly, to the mistrust in their politicians, their institutions and their leaders. The public across Europe know only too well that the world of easy answers, instant solutions and declaratory statements is a construct of fools, politicians and the media. As power shifts so rapidly and unpredictably, one might almost believe that we are today at the start of a new history.
Nowhere are these difficulties, insecurities and lack of understanding more obvious than in this country of ours. I am always wary of trying to work out what Churchill might have thought today, because I think it is an impertinence to do so. The one thing I absolutely know is that as the world has grown bigger for Britain, the opportunities greater, the chances more glittering for our commerce and our people, so the people who practise politics and government in this country, and especially those who write about it, have a sadly cramped and limited view of Europe and the rest of the world.
In this campaign, one of our most important tasks—all of us, whatever side we are on—is to remind our fellow citizens that we share a region, a climate, much of our history and demography, our economic space and our culture with the countries of the European Union, something that Churchill pointed out very clearly in his Zurich speech. Our business corporations, our leisure time, our intellectual and cultural life are all intertwined with Europe’s. We face shared problems in endless comparable ways. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) rightly mentioned all the environmental issues on which Europe has been extremely effective.
However, our political and deeply shallow media do not engage with any of that, or, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central pointed out, with the interests—vital to us—of our European partners, allies and friends. At least, that was the position until very recently. Now the media have finally woken up, like the great, slack monster they are, to the awesome prospect of combat, newspaper sales and competition as each side of the argument tries to persuade our fellow citizens of the right way.
I rejoice at the Prime Minister’s extraordinary achievement in Brussels, and I commit myself to making the same case to the best of my ability whenever I have an opportunity to do so. I am struck by the scale of support for the European Union from British commerce and businesses both large and small, and especially—in an important letter, published in The Daily Telegraph yesterday—from four former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and other former service chiefs, who drew attention to the great importance of the EU in the security sphere.
I believe that the case to remain is overwhelming on all fronts, but there is no point in pretending that the European Union does not face many major challenges that it has to find a better and more effective way of resolving. The refugee crisis, for example, has made the EU look deeply ineffective and purely reactive. It is clear that Schengen cannot survive without the most dramatic reform, and that the external borders of Europe need to be strengthened rapidly. None of us can feel happy that the European Union, which has brought such great stability to much of the European continent, now appears to be weak and uncertain. Its unpopularity matters, and it is damaging.
My hope is that our Government will seize the moment, and that, having rediscovered the great value of extremely energetic and skilled diplomacy, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Europe and others will really push ahead in the EU to drive—along with like-minded colleagues and friends—the big reforms that Europe must swallow. They will find willing friends who want to do the same. There is a huge agenda in which Britain can and will play a leading role. On economic reform, on security, on energy, on defence and on foreign policy, there are practical and radical steps that can be taken.
May I finally indulge myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, by recalling the end of Churchill’s great speech to the Congress of Europe in The Hague in 1948, remembering that the founding fathers of Europe, with a noble vision, built this astonishing edifice on firm and very lasting foundations? This is what Churchill said at that conference:
“A high and a solemn responsibility rests upon us here this afternoon in this Congress of a Europe striving to be reborn. If we allow ourselves to be rent and disordered by pettiness and small disputes, if we fail in clarity of view or courage in action, a priceless occasion may be cast away for ever. But if we all pull together and pool the luck and the comradeship—and we shall need all the comradeship and not a little luck…and firmly grasp the larger hopes of humanity, then it may be that we shall move into a happier sunlit age, when all the little children who are now growing up in this tormented world may find themselves not the victors nor the vanquished in the fleeting triumphs of one country over another in the bloody turmoil of…war, but the heirs of all the treasures of the past and the masters of all the science, the abundance and the glories of the future.”
Those of us who fight the good fight to remain will do so with confidence, but also with humility and profound respect for those who hold long-standing views that are very different from ours, and in the sure knowledge that this issue is about the fundamental place in the world, for a generation to come, of a confident, open, engaged, pro-European Great Britain. Faîtes courage!
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who is, of course, not subject to a time limit, I must warn Members that Back-Bench speeches will be limited to nine minutes.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames). I have not always found myself in such agreement with him over the years for which we have been in this place—if I remember correctly, we were elected on the same day back in 1987—but I am delighted to follow him today, not just because we are going to be on the same side in this referendum campaign, which may be another first, but because of the nature of the argument that he pursued in his speech. I am convinced that, from the “in” point of view, the argument must be presented at that level. It must be about the big issues, the things that really matter, if we are to get people out of their homes and into the polling stations to vote for continued membership of the European Union.
Perhaps I should not tempt my luck, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s “hommage” to his grandfather’s achievements might spread to one of the other institutions in which he exerted a substantial influence: the Council of Europe—along with the European convention and the Strasbourg Court—in which 47 countries have been brought together in the cause of human rights. That was one of the achievements of Winston Churchill, and, indeed, the Scottish lawyer David Maxwell Fyfe. I trust and believe that we can count on the right hon. Gentleman’s support when that battle is waged in the not too distant future.
I mentioned the level of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. Let me appeal to the Foreign Secretary and, through him, the Prime Minister. As I tried to explain earlier this week, when we look at the politics, we see that it is inevitable—numerically, arithmetically—that if the case for Europe is to be won, the bulk of the votes that will win it must come from the Labour party, the Scottish National party, the Green party and Plaid Cymru. I would have included the Liberal Democrats, but, although they are the most pro-European party, as they constantly remind us, they seem today to have deserted the cause—momentarily, I hope.
The reason for that is simple. In last year’s general election, the Conservative party achieved 37% of the vote. Even if the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are successful in carrying a majority of that vote into the “in” camp in the coming referendum, as I hope they will, that will represent roughly 20% of the electorate. To win a referendum, as I know only too well, it is necessary to achieve not 37% or 45%, but more than 50%. Arithmetically, the bulk of that winning vote—as I hope it will be—will come from people who voted for Labour, the SNP, the Green party and Plaid Cymru, on the progressive side of politics; and that affects the way in which arguments must be presented.
I say this with great respect to the Foreign Secretary. I know that Tory Ministers arguing a pro-European cause are like a wagon train surrounded by hostiles, and that they therefore have to pitch a certain type of argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) observed that the Foreign Secretary had begun his speech by using the language of scepticism and suspicion to show that he was still a Eurosceptic at heart, despite his conversion to the “in” cause. An argument of that kind may be useful in fending off the hostiles, but it will not necessarily grip the attention of the bulk of voters who have to be convinced by the European argument. For the Labour party and ourselves, the achievements of social Europe are hugely important—the achievements that have come and those that still could be. For the Green party, ourselves and the Labour party, environmental issues are of huge moment. These are things that have to be decided—even more decided now—on that continental scale. On the arguments on refugees, those of us on the progressive side of politics want to see the country do more in terms of solidarity with the refugee crisis that has beset Europe, in addition to being positive and confident about Europe’s achievements—the peace that the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex spoke about; the prosperity of the single market; the achievements on workers’ rights which converted so many on the progressive side of politics in the ’80s and ’90s to the European cause. This argument cannot be presented as if it was just about the largest faction in the Conservative party; it has to be presented to command majority support across the country.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech, as ever, but may I ask a simple question: does he think left of centre voters across the UK and in Scotland really support a political construct that has inflicted penury on millions of people in southern Europe in pursuit of a discredited monetary policy driven essentially by Germany? Is he proud of that; is that socially progressive?
Alex Salmond
The hon. Gentleman allows me to say it is exactly the sort of area we want to debate, because we want to see a Europe that builds recovery, not, as he puts it, that enforces penury. That is exactly the sort of argument for why we want to change the focus of Europe in terms of how it achieves things.
Alex Salmond
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall certainly give way to him slightly later.
I wanted to reflect on one point where I have particular experience and I think a bit of honesty is called for. I was the First Minister who lost a referendum and then resigned the next day. I did that because I do not think it is credible for a First Minister or Prime Minister to continue in office in these circumstances. I do not believe the Prime Minister—and I do not think probably the majority of his party and certainly of the country believes him—when he says he would sail on in office with a negative vote, to negotiate out of the EU, after telling people it was essential to the security and prosperity of the country, as he put it last week, for us to be in it.
There is evidence to suggest the Prime Minister has form on these matters. On 17 September 2014 he said in a statement that the question in the Scottish referendum was not about his future, but was about the future of Scotland and that he would continue regardless of the result, but by 28 September—11 days later—he confided to Scotland on Sunday the following:
“If the vote had been for Scotland to have left the UK, I genuinely would have been heartbroken. I would have felt winded and wounded. Emotionally, one would have thought, ‘I’m so saddened by this. I find it difficult to go on’.”
By “difficult to go on” I think he meant in office rather than anything more substantial.
That attitude has been confirmed by a number of sources since. I suspect that the idea that a Prime Minister could continue in office having lost such a vote is, to coin a phrase, “for the birds”, which is exactly why the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) is right in one bit of his apparent calculation: that an opening would allow a new Prime Minister, as he puts it, to negotiate our way back into some sort of European construct on better terms. The second half of that probably is “for the birds”, but at least in the first half about a vacancy being available the hon. Gentleman’s calculation may be right. I think the Prime Minister should own up, because I think his current position lacks some degree of credibility.
The nature of this debate is already having big impacts on politics. Earlier this week, while people in this place were understandably fixed on the contest between the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and the Prime Minister in the European debate, there was the settlement of the Scottish financial position. Huge tribute should be paid to the First Minister of Scotland and the Deputy First Minister, and indeed to those on all sides of the negotiating team, on bringing that settlement about. But I wondered about the rapid change in position that was taking place, where only a couple of weeks ago the Treasury position was to arrange a £7 billion reduction from Scotland’s finances, which became last week £3.5 billion, £2.5 billion earlier this week, and then ended up at zero by Tuesday afternoon. I am prepared to suggest that one reason why that change of heart may well have come about is that if it had not come about—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary says there was no change: believe me, the dogs in the street in Scotland know there was a substantial change over the last few weeks, and one reason why it may have come about, I suspect, is that if the Prime Minister was in the position of not being able to deliver his pre-referendum promises or vows to Scotland, he would perhaps find it difficult to sustain the argument that 27 other European leaders might be delivering their pre-referendum vows to him. We are already seeing aspects of this debate having a very substantial influence on politics.
I asked the Foreign Secretary earlier about the circumstances that would arise if the vote went for out and when article 50 would be invoked, and I have been reading the Library paper in preparation on exactly that issue. The Library paper suggests that the likely formulation would be that there would be a vote in this Chamber before the Government invoked the position, but the Government could say it was an Executive decision and just go ahead anyway. What it then goes on to argue is of great importance.
Mr Philip Hammond
I wish to clarify something. I answered the right hon. Gentleman on this point earlier, but I have taken advice since. It is the Government’s position that if the electorate give a clear decision in this referendum to leave, the Government will proceed to serve an article 50 notice; there will be no need for a further process in this House.
Alex Salmond
The Foreign Secretary says now, “No debate, no decision in the House”—right, fine. And I think that could be defended on the basis that it would be a brave person who took the position that the electorate had voted in a referendum and would attempt to gainsay it. But what I was going on to say to the Foreign Secretary is that perhaps he should pay some attention to what is in the Library paper, which goes on to put the position of what might be happening in the devolved legislatures. It says:
“As noted above, the competences of devolved legislatures and executives are circumscribed by EU law, and some positive responsibilities are placed upon the executives to implement that law. An argument could be made that the removal of these features on leaving the EU would prima facie alter devolved competence, and, insofar as it involved UK legislation, would require legislative consent from the devolved legislatures under the Sewel Convention.”
Emma Reynolds
I would be interested to know what case the right hon. Gentleman’s party will make in Scotland in favour of our membership of the EU; which does he think are the most powerful arguments that he will be deploying in this campaign?
Alex Salmond
They are the ones I made at the start of my speech in suggesting that the debate should be focused on the importance of Europe in terms of social policy, the environment, why we should have solidarity in terms of refugees, and the achievements of Europe in keeping the peace in Europe, ensuring prosperity and workers’ rights. These are the arguments we are going to focus on.
It is important to pursue the end of my current point, however. The Foreign Secretary has just said no further process or vote in this Parliament would be necessary for the Government to invoke article 50, because what Parliament would gainsay a referendum vote across the UK? But in the possible circumstance that Scotland has just voted in favour while the UK has voted against, what self-respecting Scottish Parliament, having a vote, as is indicated through the Sewel convention procedure, would not vote in the way the Scottish people had voted in such a referendum, by exactly the same argument?
Mr Jenkin
Even if Scotland were to vote to leave the EU, the case the right hon. Gentleman is making for proper consultation and a proper constitutional process would be just as powerful. Does he agree that whatever the outcome of the referendum, the Government remain answerable to Parliament and they should not proceed to any precipitate or even self-harming action, which a precipitate move to article 50 might be, unless they have consulted Parliament and gained its consent for the next steps? In my view, that might require some discussion with all our European partners and consultation with other parts of the United Kingdom.
Alex Salmond
I was pointing out that if the Government’s position that such a process would not be necessary because there had been a referendum vote, where does that leave the Scottish Parliament, if, under the conventions I have cited from the Library document, it was to have a parliamentary vote, having had a positive popular vote—a yes, an “in” vote—for Europe, using exactly the same argument as the Foreign Secretary now deploys to announce the democratic short-circuiting of parliamentary convention? The Foreign Secretary should think through the implications of this argument.
Someone else has thought through those implications. This is another first for me as having agreed with the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) for the first time in 30 years, more or less, I now find myself agreeing with the former Prime Minister Tony Blair for just about the first time—certainly for the first time in the past 10 to 15 years. He made the following comment in a French radio interview—we hope the translation is good:
“In my opinion…if the United Kingdom votes to leave Europe, Scotland will vote to leave the United Kingdom.”
As I say, for once I think the former Prime Minister has put his finger on the heart of it.
The First Minister of Scotland has also alluded to these possibilities and she is well justified in doing so, because during the referendum campaign of 2014 one of the arguments made by the no side was that we would jeopardise our position in the European Union if Scotland voted yes. That sounds ironic now, given the process we are going through, but none the less that was one of the key arguments. Secondly, she is justified because during last year’s general election, she described exactly these circumstances as being a change in material circumstances which would justify another referendum and she then received a mandate of 56 out of the 59 seats in the House of Commons from Scotland. When the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), from the Labour Benches, says that we will vote as one United Kingdom and dismisses this point as if it was of very little consequence, he should remember that it is exactly that attitude which resulted in the Labour party not only being part of one United Kingdom, but having only one Member from Scotland to represent it in that United Kingdom.
The arguments I have made about Scotland could also be applied to Wales. Certainly, the Welsh opinion polls show a much less clearcut position on the European issue. This Library note also points out that in 2011 the people of Wales voted in a referendum massively for part of a referendum settlement that included the instruction that members of the Welsh Executive were to be compliant with EU law. They already have a pre-existing referendum mandate which could embrace parts of the European cause.
In summary, I would say two things to the Government in this campaign. First, they should recognise that in order to build an “in” majority, which is the objective, there will have to be a great deal more reflection and emphasis on the arguments that are likely to inspire support from a range of political opinion, as opposed to arguments that will fend off the remaining Eurosceptics who have decided to vote no. Secondly, in particular, the Government should have a great deal more sensitivity to that range of arguments than has been displayed thus far. In the space of the past week, since the referendum was announced, the Prime Minister has disregarded the Leader of the Opposition, and the views of the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland on the timing of the referendum. That is not an auspicious start in having the sort of broad campaign that can result in victory.
Mr Nigel Evans
I find it interesting—fascinating, almost—that the right hon. Gentleman wants to have a veto for Scotland over Brexit yet is very happy for Scotland to be part of a European Union where we have qualified majority voting and the vote can go against our interests time and time again. That really does happen, so how can he marry the two?
Alex Salmond
I can do it in a number of ways, one of which I shall now describe. Independent countries in Europe that are outside the euro area control 99% of their taxation base—everything except the VAT contribution. The figure for Scotland within the United Kingdom will be 25%, even after—if it is implemented—this week’s settlement. I regard 25% control of the tax base as not being independence in any meaningful sense, whereas I regard 99% control as meaningful independence and therefore worth the sacrifice in sovereignty that is inevitably made to achieve objectives such as peace, environmental protection and having solidarity when we face a continental crisis. That, in essence, is the difference between a country being independent in the European Union and being a devolved entity within this United Kingdom.
I hope that the arguments we put forward in this campaign will reflect the complexities of the coalition which is going to be required and which will have to extend far beyond the ranks of the Conservative party if we are to have a resounding in majority come June and the referendum.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), because both of them have sought and achieved a level of debate that this subject certainly deserves. I wish to say something to my right hon. Friend, and I am sure he would agree with me on this. As he knows, I have utter admiration for his grandfather, being one who was born on 10 May 1940, when he assumed the prime ministership of this country and when Hitler invaded Holland and France. However, many of Sir Winston Churchill’s pronouncements on the issue of Europe changed as time progressed. In particular, he said at one point, much later than 1948, that we should be “associated but not absorbed”. The movements that were taking place and which were apparent to Sir Anthony Eden and to others in the late 1940s and early 1950s did have a significant impact on the thinking of our great, great former Prime Minister Sir Winston himself. In saying that we should be associated but not absorbed, he had understood that there were movements afoot that were not in the interests of the United Kingdom.
Sir Winston also said that we should tell the truth to the British people. He went on to make it clear that what he meant by that was that the British people will follow you if you tell them that truth. Sadly, I believe that what has been happening in the recent months, and in the whole of this debate, is just as I indicated in my response to the Prime Minister’s statement on 3 February, when I said that he was bypassing not only his promises, but his principles. I also said that I thought there was a problem with this expression “legally binding and irreversible” and with the stitch-up, as I put it, with respect to the political decision that I anticipated would be taken in a few days’ time and which of course was taken on 10 February. I thought this expression “legally binding and irreversible” would lead on 23 June, which has turned out to be the referendum date, to something on which the voters would not be able to rely. It is strong words to say that I believe the voter is already being cheated in this respect.
I say that for this reason, and with prudence and with care: right at the heart of this is voters’ trust. I also said that on 3 February. The truth is that, for all the arguments that have developed over these words “legally binding and irreversible”, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary very carefully avoided using the word “irreversible”. He mentioned “legally binding”. Indeed, the conclusions to the summit on 17 to 18 February specifically referred to “legally binding” and specifically did not refer to the word “irreversible”. There is a good reason for that, as we have said on numerous occasions in the European Scrutiny Committee. We have said it in our reports recently and in our cross-examination of the Foreign Secretary the other day. This is all about voter trust.
Let us take as an example the removal of the words “ever-closer union” in respect of the United Kingdom. As I had to point out to the Foreign Secretary, that is not in the preamble; it is in article 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Therefore, any removal requires treaty change, but we are not being given treaty change. We are relying on an international agreement. I will not say that such an agreement does not have a certain legal character, but it does not bind the European Court of Justice. It does not guarantee that other member states may veto any treaty change that might follow. It also does not guarantee what the European Court of Justice may say about it. It does not take into account the fact that other states will be holding referendums on this subject, of which Ireland is one such example, the outcome of which cannot possibly be predicted—not as said by a Member of Parliament on the “Today” programme yesterday.
Mr Jackson
Like many Conservative Members of Parliament, we wished the Prime Minister well as he went forward with negotiations. Obviously, we are very disappointed with the gossamer-thin substance of the agreement with which he came back a week or so ago. Is not the offence compounded by the fact that we were led to believe in the Bloomberg speech in January 2013 that we were looking at a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with the European Union, and that clearly and sadly has not happened?
Sir William Cash
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I made that very point on 3 February in my response to the Prime Minister’s statement. The Prime Minister also said that our democracy in our Westminster Parliament was the root of our freedom of choice—that was the essence of what he was saying. I also have fears about the framework of this agreement and the developments by successive Governments in successive treaties. For example, I voted yes in 1975. While I pursued the Government and harried them over the Maastricht rebellion, the situation changed dramatically when the Maastricht treaty was brought into being.
Alex Salmond
I know that some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues are less surprised than I am, but am I right in hearing that he voted yes in 1975? What measure of responsibility does he take for all that has happened since?
Sir William Cash
Very little. As I have said, these were decisions that were taken in 1972 on the basis of a White Paper, which said that we would always retain a veto. That is the difference. In fact, it has been whittled away by successive Governments and I have opposed them from the moment that I saw the Maastricht treaty to the present day, as the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well.
I want to go back to this problem of voter trust. The current Eurobarometer poll suggests a minus 60 factor in trust throughout the whole of Europe. Only 43% turn out in the European parliamentary elections. There is no connection between the citizen and the European Union. This is not about Europe. Many of us on the Conservative Benches love Europe. As someone who has two Spanish grandsons, one Spanish granddaughter, a Greek granddaughter, a daughter born in France, and a son once married to an Italian, I simply say that we do not have to be anti-European to be pro-democracy. That is a very powerful and important point for us all to bear in mind.
I am deeply worried about this refusal to engage with this word “irreversible.” It cannot be guaranteed. It is like buying a shiny second-hand car on a post-dated cheque with a dud guarantee. That is what we are being offered on 23 June. Unless the voter knows that they are actually going to get what the Foreign Secretary described as the “whole package”, and that they can be guaranteed that it will be given and that it will come into effect, they have no reason to have any confidence in answering the question of whether to remain in Europe or to leave. That is a severe indictment, which is why I say that the Government are effectively cheating the voter on that day.
There is also the issue about the democracy of this country. We agreed in our vote in 1972, and in subsequent accession treaties and other treaties that were added into the European Communities Act 1972, that we would voluntarily accept this as a diminution of our sovereignty in the sense that it was being put through the parliamentary system. The other day, the Prime Minister referred to an illusion of sovereignty. I do not wish to elaborate on that other than to say that it is not an illusion. Sovereignty is about the right of the people to choose, in general elections, the kind of laws under which they wish to be governed. In this House of Commons, it is not illusion. It is a fact as well as being a question of jurisprudence. That is why it is so important. People fought and died—as my own father died in the last war—fighting for the right of the British people to resist tyranny. It is a great mistake to talk about sovereignty in terms of an illusion.
There is also the question of how much influence we actually have in the European Union. I could give some further description of the voting system, but much of what happens is decided in smoke-filled rooms and not by voting itself.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Let me begin by saying that, while I have enjoyed all the speeches so far in today’s debate, I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) for a most moving speech, which I think the whole House found pleasure in hearing.
The first week of this referendum campaign has been dominated by the positioning of members of the Cabinet and the more Godly members of the Conservative party. It is of course of interest—we are in politics so we know that it is of interest—when a political party is divided. The first point that I want to make today is that, however interesting that may be, this referendum and the decision facing the country are far more important than the position of any individual politician, the share price of any individual politician, the career ambitions of any individual politician, or indeed divisions within any single political party. It is about the future of the country. The question on the ballot paper, of course, is whether we remain in or leave the European Union, but beneath that question lie layer upon layer of fundamental issues. It is to a few of those that I shall address my remarks.
The first is the tone in which this referendum campaign is conducted. I am clearly in favour of the UK remaining in, but I want also to understand the impulse of some of those who want to take us out. I speak not principally of the leading and familiar advocates of Euroscepticism in this House, but of my constituents and many of the constituents of other Members who have concerns about this. It is important for those of us who want the UK to remain in to acknowledge the sense of loss about the changes wrought by globalisation that have made many people feel that they do not have a stake in the country’s story. It is important to acknowledge with respect that sense of loss.
Another issue underlying the question on the ballot paper is our economic and trading position. I will not go through the statistics, but we are part of a single market of 500 million people. It is the main destination for our exports. That is a big reason why as a country we are successful in attracting inward investment from both inside and outside the European Union. I believe in a UK economy that champions the activity of making things, as well as our great services. Let us consider one product, for example—a Ford car. These days such a car is likely to have its engine made here in the UK, but the rest of the car made elsewhere in the European Union—one product that contains both imports and exports. This is how modern manufacturing works. It is a supply chain and a product brought together across different borders in the European Union, with no tariffs, according to a single set of rules.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has brought up the issue of trade. Given that the economic powerhouse, Iceland, has managed to negotiate a free trade deal with the world’s second largest economy, does he not share my confidence in Great Britain’s ability to negotiate free trade deals with growing economies around the world?
Mr McFadden
I have looked at some of the trade agreements negotiated between individual countries and China, and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman does too. Those trade agreements often allow complete and free access for the Chinese end of the operation, with severely limited and tariff-imposed access for the smaller country, so I disagree with the view that we should have a choice between trading with the rest of the world and trading with the EU. We should do both.
Mr McFadden
Given the time limit, I shall make progress, if I may.
Another issue underlying the question on the ballot paper, and to which my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary referred, is that of employment rights. The EU is not just a trading relationship or a market. There is a social Europe aspect. Six million workers in the UK have gained new or enhanced rights to paid holidays. Around 400,000 part-time workers, most of them women and many of them low-paid, gained improved pay and conditions when equal treatment rights were introduced. I repeat the point I made in my question to my right hon. Friend. When people attack red tape and bureaucracy from the EU, it is very often those things that they mean—the right to decency at work. As my right hon. Friend said, parents’ right to enjoy time with their newborn baby is not needless bureaucracy. This is part of a decent, civilised economy. That, too, is on the ballot paper when the issue is debated.
Then I come to the question raised most eloquently by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex—the question of security. I will not repeat in a less eloquent manner the argument that he made. We ignore at our peril the achievements of peace that the European Union has helped to guarantee. This is an argument not just of interests, but of values. We should not underestimate the importance of resolving conflicts peacefully and of common commitments to democracy, human rights and respect for one another’s borders. Compare those with the way that conflicts in Europe were resolved before the European Union was in place. Of course, the European Union is not perfect. I have served on the Council of Ministers and the patience even of a pro-European like me can be tested by several hours in the Social Affairs Council, with the headphones on, but I always stopped to check myself and say however frustrating this might be, compared with the way that decisions used to be reached or conflicts used to be resolved in Europe, it is a great improvement.
On security, we have to ask ourselves who outside the European Union would be pleased to see a British exit or pleased to see a wider break-up of the European Union. The answer most clearly is President Putin. No one would be more pleased than him to see our security compromised in that way.
Mark Pritchard
The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest who would benefit from a UK exit from the European Union. It would, of course, be Russia, but does he agree that Russia would also benefit from Scotland breaking away from the United Kingdom?
Mr McFadden
I will come to Scotland shortly.
I want to quote General Sir Peter Wall, the former Chief of the Army General Staff, who said on the BBC last year:
“Unlike the Cold War when things were more binary . . . in a modern interconnected world it’s not just the defence capability that is going to be fundamental to our security. It’s going to be a number of other issues too.”
In today’s world, security is a combination of hard power and soft power, so when we speak of security in the European Union, we are not talking about a European army. We are talking about the values associated with being a member. Anyone who doubts their importance should talk to the members that live close to Russia’s border. They will confirm that being part of the EU is important to their security.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) asked me about Scotland. As we have heard already in the debate today and in comments in recent days, the integrity of the United Kingdom is also on the ballot paper when we cast our vote. That is clear. It seems to me a great pity that those who profess to be the most committed to the United Kingdom are cavalier about the future unity of the country, which is at stake through the referendum.
Whatever the actual words on the ballot paper, I believe that underlying them are fundamental issues for us. Perhaps the most important of all is what kind of country we are going to be. The easiest thing in the world is to look at some of the issues that we see on our television screens—the flow of refugees, the economic problems that have afflicted Europe in recent years—and to conclude that the best thing we could do is to walk away, pull up the drawbridge and say it is all too difficult. Though an answer that might be, I do not believe that it is leadership. In the end, this is a question of leadership, and that is why I believe the most important response to those issues is to resolve to play a full part with our partners and allies in facing up to them. That is why I want to see us remain in the European Union and to see the UK continue as an outward-looking, open, confident, engaged player in the world.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who made a very thoughtful contribution. In response to his comment about Britain walking away from Europe, let me say that clearly the United Kingdom will never do that, simply because of our geography. Also, we will reach out to the rest of the world. We talk about migration, and clearly we are not going to walk away from our responsibilities in that regard. As a member of the International Development Committee, I am delighted that we are now spending 0.7% of our GDP on international development, much of which is going to Syria and to help with the refugee crisis.
In many ways I feel sorry for the British electorate. I am glad that they will get a vote, because that is important from a democratic point of view—we are talking about something huge here—but at the same time they are going to have to pick out what is true and what is not. Over the next few months they will hear a lot of propaganda, and from both sides of the argument, whether from those who wish to leave the European Union, such as myself, about how wonderful it will be, and they will have to work out how much truth there is in that—I genuinely believe it—or from those who want to remain. They are using all sorts of arguments to promote their cause, including saying, “It’s going to be Armageddon the next day, if not worse.” Clearly that is not true either. As the Prime Minister said on Monday, we are a great country, and we will remain a great country whether we leave the European Union or not.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister has given the British people an opportunity to vote, because I think that their not having such an opportunity has been one of the great denials of democracy. I have been an MP for 23 years, and I remember sitting on the Opposition Back Benches when Tony Blair explained to the House from the Dispatch Box that the Lisbon treaty had been changed and was a dramatically different document and that therefore the British people would not get a referendum, despite having been promised one.
Jim Dowd
First, the only party that has ever given the British people a choice in a referendum on our membership of the European Union, or the EEC as it was at the time, is the Labour party. Secondly, the promise to which the hon. Gentleman refers was on the EU constitution, not the Lisbon treaty; it was an entirely different issue.
Mr Evans
I looked at both documents, and the funny thing is that about 98% of it was the same; they cut and pasted it and it was virtually the same document. I was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe at the time, and I remember European Commission officials telling us, “Don’t worry; it’s virtually the same document.” They had one message for the people of the United Kingdom and a completely different one for the European Union.
Mr Baker
It was a think-tank—possibly Open Europe—that made available a consolidated version so that one could see, by putting the documents side by side, that there were no substantive differences. The only purpose of that treaty was to get it through without asking the people whether they wanted it, and that, I am unashamed to say, was the trigger that brought me here.
Mr Evans
If Tony Blair thought that he was doing this project any favours by denying the British people a referendum, he was greatly mistaken. I think that the reason he withdrew the promise of a referendum was that he thought the British people would vote no. Ireland regularly has referendums on treaties, and it sometimes has a second one, but normally after another discussion with the European Union in which parts of the treaty are changed to make it more favourable to Ireland. Had we voted no to the Lisbon treaty, I suspect that there might have been a different project for the United Kingdom—a third way, to use Tony Blair’s favourite phrase—in a more associative relationship with the European Union, based more on trade than on the political entity that we know a number of European Union leaders want. I think that Tony Blair did this project no favours whatsoever.
I will vote to leave the European Union because I love my country, but I respect those who will vote to remain, because they love their country too; both sides believe that they are acting for the betterment of their country. My grandfather fought in the first world war and my father fought in the second world war, and they did so to give democratic rights to countries within Europe, and indeed across the rest of the world. Devolution is a keystone of British policy, bringing power closer to the people, but I believe that the leading elites of Europe might as well be from another planet. Most normal people in this country, and indeed across the rest of Europe, cannot name a single member of the Commission. We have scores of these faceless governing elites, many of them on salaries way above the Prime Minister’s.
That reminds me of this great red card that we have been told will allow us to stop legislation we do not like, so long as we join together with another 14 countries to block it. The idea was ridiculed by William Hague in this Chamber when it was first suggested. Even if the legislation we were trying to block proposed the murder of the first born, he argued, we would be unlikely to get 14 other countries to come together in the timescale that we would be given. Remember what happened—this is a measure of how influential we are in the rest of Europe—when we tried to stop Juncker becoming President. We went on a great salesmanship deal throughout the rest of the European Union, and how many countries did we get to support us? The answer is one—Hungary—out of 27.
Mr McFadden
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the Government’s failed attempt to stop Mr Juncker. That was not because the European Union is some evil organisation; it was because the Government were completely useless at finding allies. When Labour were in government, we made a similar effort to stop a candidate and we were successful. The answer is to make friends and do the job better.
Mr Evans
I think that the answer is for us to have a veto on things we do not like. That is what sovereignty is all about. When I fight a general election, I want to be able to deliver what is in my party’s manifesto. I raised earlier the issue of child benefit going to youngsters who have never set foot in the United Kingdom. One of our manifesto promises was to stop that, but now we are told that we cannot do that. That is the nub of the problem; we are putting promises in a manifesto that we cannot deliver because the European Union will not let us.
Mr Evans
I will not, because there is no more injury time.
This is all about sovereignty. We talk about the illusion of sovereignty. Well, if anyone wants to see it, they should come to the Palace of Westminster. If we cannot deliver the promises that we put in our own manifesto because a governing elite somewhere else will not let us, that is the illusion of sovereignty here in Westminster.
Mr Evans
I will not.
It is exactly the same for the abolition of VAT on sanitary towels. It should be something we decide at Westminster. It should have nothing to do with the European Union whatsoever. I believe that if my constituents vote for me and then they do not like what my party has done in government after five years, they can get rid of us so that the laws can be changed. That does not happen at the moment, and that is one of the reasons why I wish to leave the European Union. We talk about a seven-year brake. Would anybody buy a car when they had to get permission from somebody else to use the brake and when the brake was going to go after seven years? We would have to be bonkers to buy a car like that.
Trade is mentioned time and time again. Will hon. Members please read the House of Commons paper that was mentioned? It shows that the deficit in goods and services with the European Union is huge—with Germany alone, it is more than £27 billion. I assume that Mercedes will be the first to knock on Angela Merkel’s door if Britain decides to leave, and it will say, “Don’t you dare meddle with the trade agreements the United Kingdom wants with the European Union.” Of course, we are also members of the World Trade Organisation, which will give us protection. I simply do not believe that the other countries of the European Union are vindictive and spiteful and that they would want to cut their noses off to spite their faces; indeed, if they were, would these be the sort of people we wanted to associate with?
Security is mentioned time and time again, and this issue does worry me. More than 1 million people have come into the European Union over the last 12 months. It is predicted that, by 2020, 3.6 million people will have entered Germany alone. Even now, the chief of Europol estimates that 5,000 jihadists have managed to enter. At what stage will Germany give passports to the people who have arrived there, and where will those people go? Many of them will come to the United Kingdom; they will have German passports, and there will be little we can do to stop them. That worries me.
Sadly, I do not think the people of Paris—whether at Charlie Hebdo or the nightclub that was attacked—felt any safer last year because they were in the European Union. That is not security. I want us to secure our own borders. That will allow us to have the power to control who comes into the United Kingdom. As the razor wire goes up all over Europe, let us take this once-in-a-lifetime chance to take back control, put the security of our people first and put power back in the hands of the British people.
It is the British people I would like to end with. We have not had a referendum on this issue since 1975. The Foreign Secretary told us there will be no second referendum, and I believe him. This will be the only opportunity we get in my lifetime to take back control, to leave the European Union and, while still trading with it, to return sovereignty to this country. I hope the people of Britain will take that chance on freedom day.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans). Very little of what he said did I agree with, but I appreciate the way he presented it.
Like some Members around the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman will remember the late Eric Forth, who was the MP for Bromley and Chislehurst—he was a fellow Member for part of the London borough of Bromley. Very little did I agree with him politically, either, but he once said in this Chamber that when those on the two Front Benches agree with each other, we should start counting the spoons. That is a reasonable idea. However, when not just those on the two Front Benches but the leader of the third largest party agree with each other, we need to be very careful in our assessment of what is going on: they might be right, but we have to open ourselves up to the idea that they might not be. Once there is a consensus on these things, it becomes almost unforgiveable to deviate from it.
I do not normally take part in European affairs debates, because they have had a tendency in the past to become almost theological in their content and in the way they are conducted. However, I want to make a few observations. I was one of a small minority of Labour Members who were always in favour of a referendum; indeed, before the last election, I joined a group called Labour for a Referendum. I was in a minority among the members of Labour for a Referendum in so far as I did not join that group on the basis of a fixed position of wanting to get out of the European Union. However, I came to a conclusion some years ago—one Conservative Member mentioned this—that things had changed so much in the years since the last referendum that it was time the British people were consulted again on this issue. That is the only way to achieve any kind of lasting settlement.
Others in my party mistakenly resisted the idea, even though the Prime Minister brought forward a Bill in 2013 to make provision for a referendum. What happened in 2013 and what Harold Wilson did in 1975 were almost identical: 1975 was a device for trying to prevent the Labour party from splitting asunder, and 2013 served exactly the same purpose, but for the Conservative party.
Many Labour Members resisted the referendum. They said, quite rightly, that the period before it would create uncertainty. As others have said, uncertainty is bad for business—one need only look at the performance of the pound on the international exchange markets this week. I think foreign exchange traders must be somewhat nervous creatures, because the fact of the referendum has now been around for four years, and it was obvious that it would take place once the current Government won the last election. It was there for all to see that there would be a referendum sometime before the end of 2017.
Mr Jackson
I am sure the international finance community will be heartened by the hon. Gentleman’s solicitude about the operation of the international markets. On a serious point, does he agree that there is a gap in the market for the decent, patriotic, thoughtful Labour voters who are Eurosceptic and believe that our future lies outside the European Union as a global trading nation? Those people are being let down by their own Front Benchers, who are, in effect, ignoring those views.
Jim Dowd
If I have time, I shall come on to that, but I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, because it does have validity right across the argument. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, there are those who say they love their country and want to vote out and those who say they love their country and want to stay in. We have to give due regard to everybody’s position.
The other failure of leadership was not so much on the business considerations but came from those who said that the British public might come to the wrong conclusion, so the only way to protect against that was not to allow them the choice in the first place. That was a mistake. I am not saying it is the only reason the Labour party did not win the general election last year, but it would not have been an incentive for people to vote for Labour that we were standing against the referendum while the Conservatives were standing in favour of it.
Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the Minister for Europe, I served on the Committee on the original Wharton Bill, as it was known at the time. Everybody knows that it was not the Bill of the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) but No. 10’s Bill, and it was given to him when he drew the No. 1 position in the private Members’ Bill ballot. A very entertaining and illuminating experience it was, too. I remember the hon. Member for Stockton South standing up at the start of the proceedings and introducing the programme motion, quite properly as the promoter of the Bill, then sitting down and for the next five weeks not saying a word until we concluded our proceedings and he indulged in the usual civilities that we have at the end of every Committee stage to thank everybody for taking part.
The Minister for Europe was by far the most active person on the whole Committee, although I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East was the more convincing. The whole thing was a pantomime designed to save the Tory party from itself—or at least part of itself. The parallel I drew between Harold Wilson’s manoeuvrings in 1975 and those of the current Prime Minister works to some degree, but unfortunately Harold Wilson only kept the Labour party together for less than a decade, and then it split over this very issue.
I actually voted no in 1975. Conservative Members have been saying that they voted yes and Labour Members have been saying that we voted no, and I think for probably the same reasons—what we expected and wanted the then EEC, now the EU, to become. I am less inclined to vote no this time, although I am not entirely certain, because I have many concerns about how the EU operates. Strangely enough, I agree with the Mayor of London, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) in this regard: I think that Britain can have a future outside the European Union. I just do not think it is the optimal future for the British people. Where I disagree entirely with him is on the risible and laughable idea that we can vote no today so that we can vote yes tomorrow. That is completely bizarre and untenable. I admire the attempt by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) to breathe life into the idea of a second vote by saying that the Government should not respond immediately to the result of a negative vote, but there will not be a second vote under any circumstances and we should have the courage to face up to that.
Mark Pritchard
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) also wrote recently that the British people are always right, and I agree with him. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and the Mayor of London that, whatever the result—in or out—the British people will be right, and all of us, whatever school of thought we might hold to today, need to respect that?
Jim Dowd
I would not take such an absolutist view. The British people may or may not be right—that is a matter for a higher judgment—but, as a democrat, I believe that, whatever they vote for, it is incumbent on the Government and Parliament to abide by it. If in later years we discover that it was all a great mistake, well, c’est la vie. I cannot help feeling that the calculations of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip have more to do with the succession to the Tory leadership than with the best interests of this country or of Europe.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jim Dowd
No, I am in my own time now.
I do not think that the deal that the Prime Minister came back with will be the key determinant of this argument. Rather, it is going to be about people’s overall impression of the EU and of Britain’s place in Europe and its family of nations. It will also be about the merits of the rival advocates, as well as of their arguments, as we attempt to clear the fog of claim and counterclaim. We currently have the strange spectacle of the Secretary of State for Justice being in open dispute with the Attorney General over the legal status of the agreement that the Prime Minister brought back over the weekend. That argument has been rehearsed again this afternoon, and I am sure it will complicate the issue for the next four months. Incidentally, I think the British people, rightly or wrongly, will be heartily sick of the whole discussion by the time we get to 23 June.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley said that this is the first chance he has had in his life to vote on this issue. This will be my second chance, if I survive to 23 June, which I sincerely hope I do, although I am sure that view is not universally held. It is such a critical issue for the future of this nation, and for our neighbours and friends, that we have to take it seriously. We cannot let it degenerate into an argument between two groups of zealots—the loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists on the one hand, and the self-satisfied political elite of the status quo in Europe on the other.
Finally, as others have said, we should have regard to the impact that the vote will have on the whole of these islands. If there is a negative vote, it will have an impact on parts of the UK and a direct impact—I am certain it would be a negative impact—on relations with the Republic of Ireland. There are various complicated and practical reasons for that. Given all the progress we have made in recent years, that is not a risk worth taking.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, Members have been taking full advantage of interventions and we are therefore running rather late, so I am going to have to reduce the limit to eight minutes. If Members continue to be so generous in taking interventions, I will have to reduce it further.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am most grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd).
I beg a little indulgence for a moment. It is highly irresponsible to bring in the Northern Ireland peace process as yet another scare against voting leave in the referendum. There was an open border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland when Ireland was not a member of the European Union and we were, and perfectly reasonable arrangements will be made with the Republic of Ireland if the United Kingdom votes to leave the EU. There are participants in the peace process on both sides of the debate, and they are talking perfectly constructively together. They will not allow this to become an obstruction to peace in Northern Ireland, and nor should we talk it up, because I think that that would be irresponsible.
I want to make the point that I am not advocating a second vote. If we get a vote leave in this referendum, as I expect we will, that will do for me. The point I am making is that article 50 is a provision of the treaties that we will have just rejected. The idea that we are bound to follow the article 50 provisions after we have just rejected the treaties in their entirety seems a bit odd. Given that the treaties were created by 28 member states negotiating together, 28 member states negotiating together to rescind our membership of the European Union might be a more sensible approach. However, that should be decided by Parliament, not by the Government acting on Crown prerogative in an act of petty vengeance to scare people.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman is saying that once we say no to the EU, we will tear the whole thing up and do it all on our terms, but he expects there to be a cordial relationship afterwards while we renegotiate on terms that are favourable to us. Are not those two things completely and utterly incompatible?
Mr Jenkin
Let me put it another way to the hon. Gentleman. Is he seriously suggesting that after the British people have rejected the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and the treaty on European Union, our European partners are going to say, “You may have rejected all that, but you are bound by this”? That is ridiculous. It is absurd. It is far more likely that Parliament will want to discuss the matter, the Government will produce a proper White Paper and we will proceed in an orderly and consensual manner, not in a precipitate one. The only reason those in favour of remaining are raising this is to try to scare people. It is another scare story, and we are not having it.
The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge also talked about uncertainty. May I point out to him that every time we have a general election, there is a certain amount of uncertainty? My goodness, at the next general election, if there is any possibility of the Labour party being elected, boy, there will be uncertainty! There will be uncertainty in the markets, and there will be pound gyrations. Democracy is about uncertainty, but we get more uncertainty where there is no democracy: look at Greece; look at Spain; look at the eurozone. That is uncertainty, and it is the uncertainty that we want to get out of.
If we vote leave, we know what will happen. We will get our powers back. We will get control over our borders. We will be able to spend the money that we send to the European Union as we want to spend it, instead of subsidising our European competitors. Three hundred and fifty million pounds a week, or a net contribution of £10 billion a year—that is a lot of money. We will be able to pay for the roads in Scotland. We will be able to pay for universities. We will be able to pay for the investment in science and research that we need, and then some.
The real question in the debate is what happens if we vote remain. What new laws will be imposed on us after we vote remain? What judgments will the European Court of Justice visit upon us over which we have no control? What about the next treaty? We know that there will be another fiscal union treaty like the one that the Prime Minister vetoed a few years ago. The agreement states:
“Member States whose currency is not the euro shall not impede the implementation of legal acts directly linked to the functioning of the euro area and shall refrain from measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of economic and monetary union.”
It sounds as though we are giving up that veto. We will not be able to veto a fiscal union treaty if we have signed this agreement, particularly if it is legally binding and irreversible. We are going to be stuffed. In whatever way that treaty affects our interests—we can even have a referendum on it—if we abide by this agreement, we will not be able to stop it. Talk about uncertainty; I think it is safer to leave.
Let me declare an interest as a director of Vote Leave. Let me also praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) for raising the tone of the debate and giving us an historical perspective. He underlined the fact that we are at a turning point in the history of our country. I was struck by the shadow Foreign Secretary’s reminder that more than a generation has passed since the last referendum, when his father was opposed and my father was in favour. Today, the shadow Foreign Secretary is in favour and I am opposed. I shall not speak for my father in this debate, but there has been a reversal of roles. The real question is: should the debate be about the past or the future? We do not live in the world as it was after the second world war—pre-globalisation, pre-global trade, pre-computers and the internet, pre-space age and pre so many of the scientific discoveries that affect our world today.
Sir Nicholas Soames
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. I have huge respect for his views, but does he not agree that we cannot make a serious judgment about the future unless we are quite clear about what went before?
Mr Jenkin
We should be ready to recognise the EU institutions our continent has inherited as so last century, but I was going on to say that we must never forget the forces of history and the tragic errors of the past that have shaped the present on our continent, although we must also have the courage to embrace the change in our society and in the world that will otherwise leave us stranded with and clinging to outdated ideas and constructs. Our main contention is exactly that; the EU is an outdated construct.
Sir William Cash
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we remain we would in effect be in the second tier of a two-tier Europe dominated by other countries?
Mr Jenkin
That is a whole new argument, which I accept, but I am not going there now.
The referendum represents not just a turning point in itself, but just one point on a trend that is increasingly paralysing our entire continent, the unity of which is being shattered by the very institution that was intended to unite it. Let us look at the eurozone and at the Schengen free travel area and the migration crisis. Whereas in 1975 my party, myself included, was enthusiastic for membership of the European Communities, today my party—and, I believe, my country—knows that the world is utterly different.
Today, the strongest arguments for remaining appear to be ones saying that we are determined not to participate in the three main purposes of the EU: we will not join the euro, we will not join the Schengen free travel area and we will not be in a political union. What is the point of our being in this arrangement when we are so opposed to its principal purposes?
I must say that we have heard a certain amount of this debate before, as the Minister for Europe will recognise. Much of it is familiar from the Maastricht debates 20 years ago. We were told that we had opt-outs, but the problem is that they do not always work. We were told that about the social chapter, but we were overruled by the European Court of Justice on the working time directive. We were told then, “Europe is changing”, and, “It’s all going our way.” I cannot believe I have heard it again, but the Foreign Secretary actually said today:
“National where possible, Europe where necessary.”
John Major regarded that—subsidiarity—as his principal triumph, which was going to reverse the centralising tendencies of the European Court of Justice. We were told we would always be leading in Europe. Today, the Foreign Secretary said we would “fight” with “like-minded…states” and be
“leading…in a reformed EU”.
We have heard all this before—these are the same deceits—to persuade people to support something that we do not really want. We were told that if we vetoed Maastricht, it would be a “leap in the dark”. What did the Foreign Secretary say today? He said leaving would be a “leap in the dark”. The giveaway this afternoon was when he said:
“Of course there is more to do”.
You bet! If we stay in the European Union, there is going to be a lot more to do, because this agreement is of course so inconsequential, even if it were irreversible and legally binding.
What happens if we vote to remain? That is the question the Government need to answer. What will happen? Last time, we were told before the referendum that there would be
“no loss of essential national sovereignty”.
The word “essential” was useful, because it denuded that phrase of its meaning. We have the same weasel words coming from the Law Officers today.
If the British people are deceived again and we vote to remain, we will have resolved nothing. We will be back in the Chamber in five or seven years’ time either to demand another referendum or deciding just to get out. That is the trend: we will be facing the same problems and we will be afflicted by the same conflicts with our European partners, although by then the problems will be worse. I believe that leaving the European Union is the safer choice. Our security depends on NATO and our alliances, our own people and our resources, and working with allies. The idea that we can work with allies only if we stay in the European Union is yet another deceit being visited on the British people.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), even though I do not agree with anything he said, apart perhaps from what he said about the speech by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), which was one of the best I have heard in this House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, it was a pleasure to listen to. I really feel that he raised the level of the debate.
I want to speak about patriotism. The British people are deeply patriotic. According to the recent social attitudes survey, the overwhelming majority of British people describe themselves as being proud of our country. I think that means that they want to see a strong country, a strong economy, a more secure country and a country that stands tall in the world. It is my view that there is a powerful, progressive, patriotic case for remaining in the European Union.
I believe, as do many in this House, that we are stronger, more prosperous, safer and more influential as a member of the European Union. The challenges that we face in the 21st century will not be solved by pulling up the drawbridge, and they do not stop at the white cliffs of Dover. We achieve more working together than we do alone. We have a proud history as a trading nation and a proud history of providing leadership in international and European co-operation.
We, the patriotic, progressive pro-Europeans, are the optimists about our role in the world. We believe that by working with others, we do not lose power, but assert and augment our power in the world. The anti-Europeans are the pessimists in this debate—pessimistic about what we as a country can achieve by working with others, and pessimistic in saying that we will always be the losers when we try to work with others. British Prime Ministers of different political colours have disagreed with that assumption. They have driven international co-operation and the establishment of international organisations. The great post-war Labour Government of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin were instrumental in setting up NATO.
Emma Reynolds
In a minute.
As the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex said in his powerful contribution, his grandfather, Winston Churchill, played an incredibly important role in preserving the peace in the post-war period. Edward Heath took us into the European Economic Community. Margaret Thatcher very successfully drove the creation of the European single market. Tony Blair, somebody of whom I am very proud because he won three elections for us, successfully pushed for the enlargement of the European Union.
I do not often agree with the current Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party, but I thought he made a very powerful case on Monday for our membership of the European Union. That powerful case goes beyond the deal that he struck. He was absolutely right when he said in his closing remarks that
“this is no time to divide the west”
when we face
“Putin’s aggression in the east; Islamist extremism to the south.”
I agree with him too that there is “strength in numbers” and that the choice in the referendum is between
“an even greater Britain inside a reformed EU and a great leap into the unknown.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 25.]
Many column inches and much time on the broadcast media over the past few days have been dedicated to the divisions in the Conservative party over our membership of the European Union and to the intricacies of the deal that was struck at the longest English lunch in living memory on Friday in Brussels. However, I hope and believe that it is the bigger arguments about why it is in our interests to remain in the European Union that will, in the end, determine how people vote in the referendum on 23 June. I will make three key arguments that are at the heart of the patriotic and progressive case for our membership.
Let me take the economy. We trade more with the rest of the EU than we do with any big economy around the world, including the US, China or India. As a member of the biggest single market in the world of 500 million people, we are a gateway to the rest of that market, which is why we are able so successfully to attract inward investment from companies in the European Union and beyond.
On the outskirts of my constituency, Jaguar Land Rover has invested in a huge award-winning engine factory that, when at capacity, will employ 1,500 people. Its chief financial officer recently said that any split from the European Union would damage trade for UK business, and he cautioned against “barriers” that would arise in the event of the UK leaving the EU.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point about the importance and interconnectedness of trade. Does she agree that the same interconnectedness applies to higher education? Universities share funding across Europe and come together in an interconnected way. By working together with research grants and research as one European Union, we share our expertise with that of others, and we solve global problems together.
Emma Reynolds
I agree with my hon. Friend, and the University of Wolverhampton and Universities UK have made that point clear. They think that there is great strength in universities across our country working together with other universities and research institutes in Europe, and they benefit from the investment and funding that we receive by being a member of the European Union.
Alongside my colleagues, as a Labour MP I will be making the social Europe case for staying in the EU. Thanks to the previous Labour Government who signed up to the social chapter—I am proud of that Government and that we took that decision—working people across the country have employment rights and protections that they would not otherwise have, such as paid annual leave, and rights for agency and part-time workers. Many of those affected are women. As the TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady recently said, those rights and protections will be on the ballot paper come 23 June. Frankly, I do not think that we can trust this Tory Government to maintain those protections if we were to leave the EU.
There is also a powerful security case for us to stay in the EU. Prior to the European arrest warrant, the French suspected a terrorist in our country of bombing the Paris metro, and it took us 10 years to extradite that suspect. In 2005, Osman Hussain, the terrorist who attempted to bomb the London underground and fled to Rome, was extradited back to the UK in under five weeks. That tells us something about the strength of pooling resources, expertise, and sharing information about criminals who do not respect borders.
Briefly, let me touch on the weaknesses of the counter-argument. Those who want to leave the EU have a responsibility to tell us what “out” would look like, and it seems that there is a choice between on the one hand not having access to the single market with British business being hit with trade barriers and tariffs, and on the other hand having access to the single market while still paying into the EU budget and accepting the free movement of people and all the rules, but without a seat at the table. There are major inconsistencies in that argument. As I pointed out earlier, the idea that somehow we are powerless within the EU, but that if we left we could get precisely what we want on our own terms, is not believable. I hope that the patriotic progressive case for our membership will win out, and that the British people vote to remain on 23 June.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Let me start by paying tribute to the Prime Minister—not something I have always done. He has delivered on our manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, and he is the first Conservative leader and Prime Minister to do so in more than 40 years. Even Margaret Thatcher, who I am sure all those on the Government Benches still adore, did not deliver a referendum and did not negotiate any pre-referendum reforms, bar getting the rebate back for the United Kingdom, so credit where it is due. The Prime Minister may not have obtained the impossible, but many of us think that he has obtained the improbable. He went to Brussels with demands that many people thought he would never get.
Richard Drax
On what the Prime Minister achieved, does it not strike my hon. Friend as odd that the Prime Minister gave in before he went by saying he wanted to stay in the EU even before the negotiations had started?
Mark Pritchard
It is always difficult to set out the defined and true position at the outset of any negotiations, otherwise one would not negotiate the position one would want to find oneself in at the end of it, so I do not agree with that. I think the Prime Minister achieved more than many people thought he would achieve. Of course, for some people even if he had parted the English channel it still would not have been good enough. Perhaps some even might have wanted him to fail. Overall, it is a good reform package for the United Kingdom.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) about tone. The parliamentary and national debate needs to be done in the right tone with the right language, in a measured and respectful way. I hope that will be the case. We have heard some reference to scaremongering today and in the media, but it was Nigel Farage, in a recent Oxford University debate, who said that the EU referendum issue would be “settled by security”. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), in the penultimate paragraph of his remarks, suggested that security was a key issue too. It is unfortunate that the issue of scaremongering is coming into the debate. It is legitimate to talk about national security, both for those who want to remain in the European Union and those who want to leave, and it is on national security that I would like to focus my main remarks.
The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) wrote in the Daily Mirror this morning:
“The threats posed to the UK’s security are just like the threats posed to the rest of Europe”.
He is right. Common threats require a common response. Europe’s threats are our threats too. The UK’s threats are Europe’s threats. In an unsafe world this is not the time to be walking away from our friends and allies. This is a time to stand together. This is not the time for the United Kingdom to be quitting Europe. My view is that the UK is safer in a reformed European Union and the European Union is safer with the UK standing by its side, now with our own special status.
The Paris attacks have been mentioned a couple of times today and in the media over the past few days. Some say that it is less likely that the United Kingdom will be subject to Paris-style terror attacks if we leave. I disagree and think that is a very, very bold statement to make. Some say the Syrian refugee crisis has had an impact on terrorist incidents across Europe and will therefore have an impact on the UK. That may well be the case, and I will come on to those points in more detail later. Specifically on the nationality of those involved in the Paris attacks, however, the majority were EU nationals. In fact, they were led by a Belgian national.
Some have referenced open borders in the United Kingdom. We do not have open borders in the United Kingdom. That is inaccurate and, unfortunately, misleading. The fact is that under Schengen we do not have open borders. That is a fact.
Mr Rees-Mogg
We do effectively have open borders for Belgians. Belgian passport holders can come here without so much as a by your leave. They come through and we cannot refuse them unless we have specific evidence. If we could make them apply in advance and get clearance, as we have to before going to the United States, our borders would clearly be safer.
Mark Pritchard
First, the reference to the Belgian EU nationals was to make the point that it was not Syrian refugees who undertook that Paris attack. Secondly, my hon. Friend may not want to make this point, but I will make it for him. The majority of terrorist threats in this country, as proven by the 7/7 attacks, are actually by British nationals, not EU nationals. Of the four involved in the 7/7 attacks, three were British nationals and one was a German national. It is not necessarily the case that coming out of the European Union will make us safer from attacks. I think there is a danger from some—not Members and certainly not my hon. Friend—of a Trumpification of the out campaign. There is a danger of the shadow of Donald Trump coming into this referendum campaign, which I think would be very unhelpful and dangerous.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that we would be deluding ourselves if we believed that by stopping people at the border, terrorism would somehow not be a threat to this country.
Mark Pritchard
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, as he so often is. Rather than increasing the threat, Europe is helping us daily to decrease the threat to our borders. Whether it be through Border Force staff in Calais and other places, through Frontex, which has helped us with some of the most recent border issues, through collaboration between European police forces and the National Crime Agency and other UK constabularies, or through the closer working relationship between our intelligence agencies, Europe helps the UK’s national security every day of every week. As I said, suggesting that leaving the European Union will keep the UK safe from terrorism is a very bold statement.
This morning, writing in The Sun, the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord Owen suggests:
“Remaining in the EU is risking more than leaving”,
but where is the evidence? There is no evidence. That is another sweeping and bold statement, but no evidence is provided. What is more, I think that an exit from the European Union would embolden the UK’s enemies. In national security terms, who would benefit from the UK quitting Europe? One word and one country—Russia. It is the UK that has ensured that Europe acted quickly and decisively to impose sanctions over Russia’s territorial grab in Ukraine. It is Europe, alongside NATO, that is sending a clear and tough message to ensure that the territorial integrity and security of the Baltic states are assured.
On diplomacy, it is so often the United Kingdom that is the bridge between continental Europe and the United States, making sure that we get the right decisions on European foreign policy. If Members will forgive me, I want to quote from what I wrote recently for The Sunday Times:
“A decision to isolate Britain from Europe will have significant national security implications. First, a British exit would end Britain’s political and diplomatic counterbalance to France and Germany’s strategic clumsiness. … Second, Britain’s exit could also weaken Nato, with Germany and France extending Europe’s own defence structures and budgets, such as the European Defence Agency. In itself this is not a hostile undertaking, but soon, complementary defence could be replaced by defence competition”
to NATO. Some colleagues need to think carefully about that. It continued:
“Third, a British exit would rob the EU of Britain’s diplomatic advice and counsel…Over the horizon, this new weakness would present unforeseen and new national security challenges to Britain.”
Britain has a unique place in the world, and its diplomatic voice and reach is empowered by four essential global pillars: the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth and the European Union.
I would also like to refer to a published letter written by a former Chief of the Defence Staff:
“Britain’s role in the EU strengthens the security we enjoy as part of Nato, adds to our capability and flexibility when it comes to defence co-operation and allows us to project greater power internationally.”
I do not think we should dismiss the voice of former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. Yes, of course the United Kingdom could survive outside the European Union. Yes, we would still be part of NATO. Yes, we would still have our own excellent armed forces. The key question, however, is whether we are safer in the European Union or safer outside it. I would argue that we are safer in. That is also the view of our close friends and allies who share our intelligence—the “Five Eyes” nations—as well as of other nations with which we daily share intelligence, such as Germany, Denmark and so on. Let us look across the water to the US Congress, the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department. All those institutions and bodies want to see a safer Britain in the European Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Because Members are still accepting the maximum number of interventions, I shall have to reduce the speaking time limit to seven minutes. If speakers continue to take interventions, the limit will have to be reduced further.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
In the weeks and months to come, ahead of the referendum on membership of the European Union on 23 June, I look forward to hearing, from all parts of the House, the positive and inspiring argument for our remaining a member of the EU.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who set us off at the start of the debate with what I think George Herbert Walker Bush would call “the vision thing”. That was refreshing. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has left the Chamber, but I would say to him that, like his father, my grandfather died during the last war, in the Clydebank blitz. Neither side in this debate has a monopoly on loss or war legacy.
It is commendable, and refreshing, to see a Conservative Prime Minister stand in the Chamber and state his commitment to the European Union. However, if the Prime Minister intends to see a vote to remain delivered this summer, it is time for him to stop talking principally to his own party, and to start talking to the public in these islands. It is time for him to stop engaging only in the minutiae of his reform deal, and instead to offer a vision. As the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said earlier, the Prime Minister has secured only gossamer-thin concessions. The grander vision is, I think, the key. It is time to celebrate what the European project has done, and can continue to do, for the United Kingdom, Europe and the world.
Patrick Grady
The Foreign Secretary said earlier that objective 1 status, which transformed the infrastructure of the highlands and islands, could be seen as bunging money to people. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is completely the wrong tone to adopt in a debate such as this, and that we need to recognise the positive contribution that the European Union has made to these islands?
John Nicolson
That was certainly not the Foreign Secretary at his most sophisticated.
This debate should not be about appeasing troublesome Eurosceptics in the Tory ranks, or about establishing who the next leader of the Conservative Party will be. It is a debate about how we in these islands see ourselves, how we see our continental neighbours, and how the rest of the world sees us. What has been achieved in Europe since the formation of the European Union and its predecessor organisations is extraordinary. A continent that was apparently intent on destroying itself for decades—indeed, centuries—as nations fought with one another has been transformed into a continent that is synonymous with peaceful co-existence between nations.
When I listen to debates about Europe in the House, I often think how much we miss elder statesmen such as Heath and Healey. They were parliamentarians with a memory of war, who could have put into context for all of us what this project was about. They could have reminded us that it was about peace in Europe, and about establishing unprecedented stability between countries that had torn themselves apart through generations of enmity. Many Conservative Members will tell the House that the European Union was established on the basis of trade and trade alone, but I think that they forget their history. The Schuman declaration, presented by the French Foreign Minister in May 1950, proposed the creation of a European Coal and Steel Community. Why? To lock the economies of Germany and France together into mutual dependency, making war impossible. That was a “first step” in the integration of Europe, and one that many at the time thought should be treasured. It was a remarkable first step.
Although the institutions and treaties have changed over the years, the principle that underpins them has remained the same. Whether it was delivering forgotten freedoms to ex-fascist countries such as Spain and Portugal, inspiring a new sense of hope and opportunity for the ex-Soviet states, or promising the seemingly impossible—the restoration of free movement across the former Yugoslavia—the dream of EU membership facilitated peace, progress and prosperity throughout the continent.
It will come as no surprise to Members to know that I want to see Scotland, one day, with a seat at the top table of the European Union as an independent member state. I want Scotland to have control of its own foreign policy and its own defence policy, to control its own taxes and resources, and to make its own welfare decisions. Like other small nations—Denmark, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden—we know that this is achievable while continuing to enjoy the benefits of a union which promotes human rights across the continent, advances social Europe, guarantees workers’ rights in so many fields, where we work together to combat terrorism and climate change, and which allows access to the world’s largest trading area.
Membership of the European Union continues to provide the peoples of Scotland with huge opportunities. The right as European citizens to live, study and work in any EU member state is not something that should be taken for granted. In 2012-13, over 1,400 students from Scottish universities were supported by the Erasmus programme to study elsewhere in the EU. Scottish companies have taken full advantage of the export markets; Scottish exports to the EU were worth £12.9 billion—some 46% of all Scottish exports—in 2013 alone.
The vision I and my colleagues on the SNP Benches have for Scotland is one in which we play a full and active role on the world stage, independent but not never insular. It was called subsidiarity by Sir John Major, a concept I think we probably believe in rather more than Sir John Major himself: devolving as much as possible, but co-operating and pooling resources whenever desirable.
The alternative vision offered by the Eurosceptics and Europhobes is a depressing one. Indeed the pessimistic vision of the Foreign Secretary is a depressing one. The prospect of retreating into ourselves, closing our borders and withdrawing from a union that has brought unprecedented peace and progress to this continent is a fate that has never, and will never, appeal to me. So let us trumpet an optimistic vision of Europe with verve and with enthusiasm and commend EU membership to the peoples of the United Kingdom with passion.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree that we must understand the lessons of history and if I, for one moment, thought that leaving the EU would make civil war in Europe the remotest bit possible, I would not be standing here advocating that we do leave. How could I, when I come from a post-war generation where my parents constantly talked about the war? It was the essential fact of their life. My parents were 25 in 1945. My mother had to flee Paris hours before the German tanks rolled in. Her best friend, who was Jewish, had to throw herself off a train and was killed as she was being taken to the death camps. My father also had to flee France. This was a defining moment in their life, and it is not surprising that that generation wanted to create more of a sense of European solidarity and never repeat the slaughter and horror of two world wars. We all know that.
There was also a lack of confidence, I think, in that post-war generation. In the lifetime of my parents and my early lifetime, in just 20 years the world’s greatest empire dissolved—our empire dissolved. And there was a lack of confidence about our economy. When I had my first job and I was sitting across the river looking at the Palace of Westminster dreaming one day of becoming an MP, I was having to work a three-day week and was working by candlelight. Then when I arrived here in the 1980s we were shadowing the Deutschmark and it was felt that, again, we would find life outside the European Economic Community, as it was then, or the European Union a cold and hard place, but now we are in a different world. We are now in a new world—I will not say a brave new world, but it is a globalised world—and we have regained our confidence as the fifth largest economy in the world.
Therefore, some of these arguments are based on the past and we must certainly learn the lessons of the past, but we must realise that there is now a different future, and that the EU may have played its part but it has moved on from what we voted for in 1975. It has moved on from what was an economic community into something much more unified in that sense, and much more powerful.
Interestingly, however, so few of the people here who advocate our staying in the European Union seem to have this vision; where are the speeches today or this week, or in the country that have that vision from those who favour remaining in the EU? Where are the people arguing for a single currency? Where are the people arguing for us to be part of Schengen? Where are the people arguing for much greater co-operation and, indeed, an ever closer union? Where are those voices in Parliament? Where are the voices of the Ted Heaths, the Barbers and all these great figures from our past?
Mark Pritchard
I am not arguing for an extension of Schengen or for a single currency, but I am arguing for us to remain in on national security grounds. Does my hon. Friend, with all his experience, agree that if the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, the EU would be less safe and if the EU is less safe, just over the horizon, that is not in the United Kingdom’s national security interest?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a weak argument, perhaps one of the weakest that those advocating our staying in the EU believe in. I am not going to repeat all the arguments about our security ultimately depending on NATO, but I will give one example, from recent history, in order to reply to my hon. Friend. Does he think that the European Union attempting, in a rather cack-handed way, to create an association agreement with Ukraine was a good move to make? Has it made Europe a safer place? Has it not led directly—I do not approve of this—to the annexation of Crimea? An imperialist Europe is not necessarily a force for security; the force for security is the best national interests of the United Kingdom, working with our partners in NATO, and that has been the case since the second world war.
I am concerned, first, by the lack of vision on the pro-European side, which is something quite new in this House. It was certainly not the basis and foundation of debates in the 1970s, when principled cases were being made on both sides. On one side were the Benns, Foots and Powells, and on the other side were the Heaths and the Barbers. If there is not such a divide between us and if we are united in this House in not wanting to be part of an ever closer union, we do not want to be part of Schengen and we do not want to have a single currency, why are we told that Armageddon will take place the moment the people—not us but the people—vote to leave? Why do we get these apocalyptic visions of what would go wrong? Why are the Government so intent on not having a cool, calm, independent cost-benefit analysis of what would happen if we decided to leave? I suspect, having read things such as the Open Europe briefing, that the difference is marginal. Open Europe suggests that, in the best case scenario, we might gain 1.1% in gross national product, if we became a deregulated, open society and immediately concluded a free trade agreement, and that in the worst case scenario we might lose 2.2% of our GNP. It is therefore quite a narrow debate. If it is a narrow debate, can we not just raise its tone? Can we not say, “Whether we leave or stay in is probably not going to have a dramatic effect on our economy”?
In that sense, it is exciting to think that we might actually be able to run our agriculture. I represent a highly rural area. Our agriculture industry creates 3.5 million jobs, provides 62% of the food we eat and contributes £85 billion a year to the UK economy. It would be rather exciting if this House and our own Ministers ran agriculture. What about fisheries? Do we remember all the arguments made by our friend Austin Mitchell, who represented Grimsby? Do we remember what Grimsby was like, when one could walk across the harbour across the decks of all the trawlers? Do we recall what happened to our fishing industry? Do we recall that it was given away in the last two days of negotiations by Mr Heath? Perhaps it would be quite visionary and quite exciting for us to create a low-tax, deregulated economy. There is a world out there. Winston Peters, a former deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, has openly speculated about, as he says, forgetting the terrible betrayal of 1973 and creating a new free trade agreement not just with Australia, as New Zealand is now concluding, but with us as well. There is an exciting world out there, with India, China and so on. Do people not think—
Sir Edward Leigh
I will not give way, because others wish to speak. My hon. Friend has already given me extra time just by standing up. [Interruption.] I will finish my speech, because I do not wish to abuse the procedures of the House.
On a final note, there is a world out there. Let us grasp it; let us trust the people; let us not be afraid and let us regain our freedom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We have 10 speakers and two wind-ups. It works out at six minutes each, and that is without interventions. I ask those who have spoken to think about those who have not to make sure that they also get on the record. If we can help each other, we will all get there.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
I am delighted to be able to contribute to this debate. I want to take the time allocated to talk about how I have personally benefited from being an EU citizen. My speech will not be about the big issues that some other Members have mentioned. I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) that this debate can get a bit theological, so I will try to keep it personal and talk about the points that affect me.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be too far away to see, but I have a scar on my chin, which I received when I was 17 or 18 while I was on a cultural visit—more commonly known as a lads’ holiday—in a southern European country. Unfortunately, halfway through the trip, I partook in one too many libations and ended up in a fight with the pavement. It is safe to say that the pavement won and I had to engage the local medical services. As I was younger than I am now, I did not have any travel insurance. However, the whole process at the hospital was made incredibly easy by the fact that I was carrying a European health insurance card in my wallet. That allowed me to be treated for free, very quickly, and I would say painlessly if they had waited for the local anaesthetic to kick in before stitching me up. I know that, compared with some issues that have been discussed today, that situation seems insignificant, but it is a practical way in which being an EU citizen has had a positive impact on my life. I am sure that it is an experience that has been shared by many other people my age.
I have been contacted by a number of young people who are slightly worried about what will happen when they leave school or are in their university holidays. They fear that a Brexit might mean that they will not have the opportunity to jet off easily to Magaluf or Zante for the aforementioned holiday. Will they have to go through the hassle of getting visas just for a week or two of sun, sea and other things? Such issues may seem insignificant in the Chamber, but they matter to young people, especially those who have been denied a vote in this referendum.
There are 170,000 EU nationals living and working in Scotland, improving our economy, enriching our culture and even legislating in our national Parliament—the Scottish Parliament. I have personal experience of the valuable contribution of EU citizens to our society, as one even assisted me in my election campaign as my election agent. I recognise the real concerns that have been expressed to me by constituents who are EU citizens. They worry about what will happen to them, their jobs, their family and their lives should the UK leave the EU. They have also expressed their frustration that they will not be able to vote in the referendum.
A large number of my constituents are farmers, and the European common agricultural policy provides vital funding for them. It helps farmers and landowners to maintain farming and forestry in vulnerable areas and provides competitive support to enable a wide range of agri-environmental, food, rural and community activities across Scotland. In the current financial period of 2014 to 2020, Scotland will receive about€4.6 billion from Europe to implement the CAP.
Farmers depend on our membership of the EU to survive and thrive. They are not only the people who produce our food and look after our land, but the lifeblood of our rural communities. To put at risk the substantial investment that Europe makes in our farmers through the CAP would be to rip the heart right out of rural Scotland.
Many Members have spoken about where they would like to see the EU doing less, but I would like to talk about one area in which I would like to see it doing more. Again, it is a practical matter. I would like to see a single digital market where customers can buy and then use digital content across borders. Why? I want to watch Netflix abroad. If my sunbathing or sightseeing is rained off, I want to be able to sit in my hotel room and watch my favourite show, without being told by my screen that the current programme is unavailable in my location.
In my brief time, I have spoken about why the EU is important to me as an EU citizen—not big issues, not theology, but reasons based on self-interest, which I am sure will have convinced some Conservative Members.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Thank you very much for calling me to speak in this interesting debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that 23 June will be the most momentous day in this country’s history, or certainly in my lifetime. We have the opportunity to get our country back, and I very much hope for all our sakes that we take it.
I was inspired by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), because it was so positive. That is what the out campaign is. Today we have heard from the in campaign that leaving would be a leap in the dark. We have heard about the risks—shut the curtains, close the door. Not quite “Dad’s Army”-style “doomed”, but not far off it. Let me tell those who do our country down, as I believe they do by speaking like that, that we will have huge aspiration, hope and opportunity if we leave the EU. We have absolutely nothing to fear from leaving what has, in effect, become a welfare state or the equivalent.
We are now reliant on nanny—let us call the EU nanny. Nanny has bred us, suckled us, brought us up and given us things when we asked for them, even when we did not deserve them. When we reach a certain age and it is time to break free from nanny and the cot and to get out there and start to grow up, we are told that we may not do so—or worse, we have been bred to the point that we do not want to leave. Sadly, that is the position of this great country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) mentioned his grandfather, for whom I have the most huge respect, as does the nation. I did not know him; I wish I had, but from the history books that I have read, I believe he would be on the side of those who want to get their country back. We often hear from the newspapers, commentators and those who want to stay in that we are all, as I recall the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) describing us, middle-aged grey-haired gentlemen. I hope that I have got that right. We are portrayed as swivel-eyed lunatics who want to leave the EU, dig a hole in the garden, stick up the Union Jack and sing “God Save the Queen.” Oh, if only it were that simple.
We do not want that at all, but we do want to be free to control our destiny, our sovereignty, our democracy. Every speech I have heard warning of the risks of leaving predicts that suddenly we will not trade with Europe, and all communication and intelligence will shut down overnight. We are told that there are 5,000 terrorists heading into the United Kingdom, or certainly to Europe and then, no doubt, on to us. Are our former partners in Europe not going to tell us? Are they going to sit there mute while London is blown apart, or Glasgow, Manchester or Birmingham? Those are, so the Europhiles say, our allies. They are friends; they are decent people. We do not dislike them. We love the Europeans. I am British and a European, and I am extremely proud of it. I want to be in Europe and to trade with Europe. I want to enjoy their culture, their languages, their mountains, their seas, their more efficient trains, their wider and faster roads and their beautiful wine; I want to enjoy it all, as we all do. But, like millions of people in this country, I do not want to be ruled by unelected bureaucrats.
I sit on the European Scrutiny Committee, which is a great privilege, under the most able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He might like to hear about the conversation I had with my taxi driver last night as I was heading home—I always talk with the drivers, because they are always fascinating men and women. When he asked me who I was, I replied, “I’m an MP, but please don’t press the ejector button.” He promised not to. Then he said, “Tell me, guv, what do you think about the EU?” I said, “It’s simple. Do you want to control the future of this country, or do you want to hand it across to unelected bureaucrats and a political elite who are completely out of touch with the electorate?” He said, “Guv, do you know William Cash?” I explained that I did and that he is a great friend of mine. He said, “He sat in my cab 25 years ago and said the same thing.” That story is absolutely true. My hon. Friend, who is far-sighted, was right then, and he is right now. Let us get our freedom back on 23 June.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I realise that I am one of a sadly dwindling number of Members of Parliament who not only remember the ’75 referendum, but campaigned in it. Indeed, I feel a certain sympathy with those on the Government Front Bench, because in the years running up to the referendum I was a very beleaguered pro-European member of the Labour party, at a time when both the parliamentary party and the party membership as a whole were adamantly opposed to it.
I supported our entry into the European Community, as it then was, because many of the reasons given for our doing so were visionary, and many of them I heard articulated today most eloquently by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and, to a lesser extent, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I in no way resile from the vision I had when I supported Europe in those years. In the meantime, like many people, I have become frustrated with the way in which Europe conducts its business, getting bogged down in the minutiae of regulation, rather than pursuing the grand visions and aspirations we saw back then. However, at no stage have I ever believed that coming out of Europe would do anything to resolve those issues, and I have not changed my position now.
I will use the brief time available to me to state why I am still so firmly committed to our membership of the European Union. I welcome the referendum as an opportunity to get away from the minutiae of some of the debates we have had and to talk about the role that Britain has in Europe, and its potential role out of Europe, and exactly what considerations people will need to exercise when they cast their vote on 23 June. I still have those grand visions of Europe, but I understand, as I think we all do, that people will base their decision on what they perceive to be in their best interests and those of their country.
No area can understand and appreciate the value that Europe has brought better than the west midlands. The Centre for Economics and Business Research showed in 2011 that about 400,000 jobs in the west midlands were linked to trade with Europe, 200,000 of which were in manufacturing. That was before the huge investment that has come from the Tata family, first in Solihull and latterly in the i54 development outside Wolverhampton. They have made it clear that one of the prime considerations in that investment was our membership of the EU and its market. Toyota and Nissan have uttered similar sentiments about investment in other parts of the country.
We must remember that it is not just the major car assembly companies but the network of small manufacturing businesses that supply them that are so dependent on our trade with Europe. We must also remember that 80% of our cars are exported—half of them going to the EU. If anything prejudiced our ability to export them, the impact on areas such as mine in the west midlands would be devastating.
Nobody pretends that the EU is a perfect institution, or that exit from it would be an immediate catastrophe, but in these days of footloose international development, a major manufacturer wanting to invest in the car industry or in other manufacturing, if given the choice of investing in a mainland Europe EU market of 440 million people or a UK market of 60 million people outside the EU, would almost certainly opt for the former. That is a hard, real fact of political life, which we must live with. We must make sure that these things do not happen.
The other main point I want to make is that, if we look to the future, the global economies are going to be China, India and, no doubt, the USA, with possibly south America and even Africa coming up. Crucially, our ability to negotiate with them and to access their markets depends on our being part of the EU. To those who say we are a great nation, I say, yes, we are—we are a great nation because we are in the EU. There is no reason for believing that if we cannot shape the EU, we will be able to shape the approach taken by China, Brazil, India or the USA if we are outside it. The fact is that we gain strength in our international relations by being part and parcel of the EU and by working with like-minded people to realise an international trading framework based on the valued principles that we have in our western societies and democracies.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
When was it ever said of the great figures of history that they learned to suffer tolerable evils and irritations because they thought change too difficult. That is not the tone of the great history of mankind that has led us to this place; it is the creed of slaves—the tone of failure—but it characterises the Government’s position and the campaign we are being offered by Britain Stronger in Europe.
We have chosen to place before the public an historic decision that will stay with us for generations, and it should be taken in a way that reflects the tone of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames). While I may disagree with him, his speech at least had the merit of being a great speech by a great man, and it deserves to be remembered by history, if I may say so—unlike the rest of the remarks we have heard.
In that respect, I have to say that I listened to the Foreign Secretary’s speech with dismay, as he started once again by listing all his misgivings about the European Union and all the problems with it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills would expect me to mention the article he wrote in The Mail on Sunday, in which he said:
“It’s clear now that the United Kingdom should never have joined the European Union. In many ways, it’s a failing project, an overblown bureaucracy in need of wide-ranging and urgent reform.
Had we never taken the fateful decision to sign up, the UK would still, of course, be a successful country with a strong economy...That’s why, with a heavy heart and no enthusiasm, I shall be voting for the UK to remain a member of the European Union.”
I am deeply fond of my right hon. Friend, but that is not the tone I wish my country to follow at this time or the picture I wish to be placed before the public.
What is at stake in this debate is not whether we co-operate with the nations of Europe, but the basis on which we co-operate with them and with the world. Healthy co-operation is voluntary—I believe in that most strongly. Human prosperity, fulfilment and dignity are all underscored by liberty, and another name for liberty is self-government. That is what I came here to deliver—the ability to have the dignity of determining our own destiny at the ballot box. That is the great gift that we should hand on to our children. Whenever somebody says to me that we should remain in because we must think of what we hand on to the next generation and the one after, I always think that the great gift that history has shown we must always hand on to the next generation is the gift of parliamentary democracy and self-government, which lead to the flourishing of liberty, prosperity and humankind.
The terrain of this debate and the polls are leading to a real problem for what I will call the pro-EU BSE campaign, for the sake of brevity, and the Government. This recalcitrance is doing no good for our own country and no good for the nations of Europe. I do not have time to critique each detail of the Government’s position. Suffice it to say that when one finds oneself listening, as I did—like many Members, I am sure—to the presenter John Humphrys on the “Today” programme asking, in a sarcastic aside, “Are we still calling this a renegotiation?”, then one knows the jig is up. The Government’s position is not a fundamental renegotiation; it is a trivial one. Some of the benefits are worth having—I hesitate to say that they are not worth having—but they are marginal at best. When the front cover of The Week shows the Prime Minister pulling a tiny white rabbit out of a hat, we know the jig is up. When The Spectator shows the Prime Minister with a food tray, lifting the lid with glee and finding a tiny morsel on the plate, we know the jig is up. I am afraid that this renegotiation is a laughing stock, and it is doing the Government no good whatsoever to present it as anything other than a trivial set of changes.
We have ended up talking about whether the deal is binding. We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for putting contrary evidence before us. I think it is fair to say that claiming that this deal is legally binding is to torture the English language in a way that only qualified lawyers are capable of doing. It is ridiculous to claim that it will materially affect the trajectory of our membership. It is largely symbolic—the word that was used to me by some continental politicians who visited to hear my views.
This is a shambles, if I may say so. It is not merely a shambles—it is becoming a rolling fiasco as day after day the Government lurch from one position to another trying to defend their renegotiation. We had the shambles of General Sir Michael Rose saying he had never signed up to a letter; he was in fact taking a contrary position. The Government claim the deal is legally binding and we end up going to and fro, potentially even creating a constitutional crisis in relation to the Secretary of State for Justice. Of the third of FTSE 100 companies who signed the letter about jobs, it turns out that 36 of them received €120 million in grants from the European Commission and spent €21.4 million lobbying the EU. That is all very well for them, but not so good for the small company in my constituency that was very nearly forced out of business because of ridiculous REACH regulations brought forward, no doubt, by companies that were able to lobby in this way.
I will not return to the remarks I made on 2 February, which my right hon. Friend the Minister will remember—I do not wish to be so crass once again—but this deal still stinks; I will leave it at that. Instead, we need the candour to set before the public that what they are being asked to do is to choose to remain in a substantially unreformed EU based on the Lisbon treaty, which our party opposed for good reason. At least let us have an honest debate that says, “Do you wish to surrender your self-government into this political project or do you wish to govern yourself?”
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I start by paying tribute to the impassioned speeches by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). I will seek not to repeat any of the excellent points that have already been made but try to introduce a few more into the debate.
Membership of the EU is important for Scotland and for the United Kingdom, but we need to work hard to maximise its potential. The Prime Minister has, most unfortunately, focused on peripheral issues rather than seeking to grasp the real opportunity that came before us during the negotiation process. Whatever the result of the referendum, the way in which we are perceived by our fellow member states is extremely important. I certainly do not want to be seen as carping from the sidelines as opposed to leading from the front in any debate in the EU.
This week I asked two Ministers if they could set out the cost of implementing this deal, particularly in relation to the benefits changes. Neither of them was able to do so. It is important to have clarity on whether or not the proposed restrictions and the administration thereof will leave the Treasury with a net saving.
The deal is a sideshow that fails to address really important issues. There were 27 Heads of State around the table and the Prime Minister clearly had their ear, so where were the discussions to improve the transparency of negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and to secure the necessary changes to protect our public services and uphold the principle that our Parliaments can pass legislation without challenge from international corporations? Where was the agreement to ensure that Ministers from elected Administrations across these islands—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—have a right to attend meetings and lead discussions in which devolved issues are debated and agreed, and to act as substitutes when UK Ministers are not available, rather than sending unelected Lords in their place, sometimes with no knowledge of their brief?
Over and above those issues, last year Scotland’s First Minister set out the key areas of reform that we want as a member of the EU. The EU should allow member states more autonomy to tackle pressing national problems, such as those relating to public health. Member states should be allowed to take the decisions they deem necessary to protect life and promote health. The EU should complete the single market in services and work to deliver President Juncker’s priority of a digital service market, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) said. On energy, an integrated EU energy market would benefit consumers and provide greater security of supply. We want regulatory reform to include changes to allow more decisions to be made at a regional rather than EU level. We should be negotiating for those things from within as a willing member of the EU wanting to play a full part, not as a reluctant tag-along, which is how we are now consistently seen.
EU membership is good for Scotland. Of course, the best deal for Scotland would be for us to have our own seat at the table as an independent and proud nation. However, despite the fact that Scotland is not a member state yet, we absolutely benefit from our current membership status, not least because EU companies add nearly £16 billion to Scotland’s economy. Scottish workers also get vital protections because we are in the EU, including guaranteed holiday and maternity leave, and protection from discrimination.
Our EU membership keeps a check on this Tory Government, for whom Scotland did not vote. Over and above the positive benefits of EU membership, it has become increasingly clear over the past week that one of its fundamental benefits is that it keeps this Government in check. The Justice Secretary wrote last week:
“It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgment about the right course of action for the people of this country.”
If the EU really acts as a handbrake on this Tory Government’s plans to dismantle workers’ rights and to wreck our environment, that is another extremely compelling argument if there ever was one for those of us on this side of the Chamber who want to stay in the EU and support our continued membership of it.
The EU referendum has all along been driven by the Tory party’s long-standing internal divisions on Europe and the challenge to the Conservatives from the UK Independence party, rather than the specifics of the Prime Minister’s renegotiation. The campaign to remain must learn the lessons of the mistakes that were all too clear in the “Project Fear” campaign in the Scottish referendum.
As things stand, it is increasingly likely that Scottish votes will play a crucial part in retaining the UK’s EU membership. My colleagues and I are happy to step up and make the positive argument for Europe, because that is the right thing for our country. Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, will no doubt be a leading and welcome light in the debate, and this House and people across these islands can look forward to an SNP campaign that will be uplifting, upbeat and visionary.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It was very reassuring to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary tell us earlier that he is a Eurosceptic and explain how successful the renegotiations were from his Eurosceptic ivory tower. That is encouraging, but I thought it might be worth looking at what the renegotiations achieved compared with what Her Majesty’s Government set out. In the Conservative party manifesto, it was “an absolute requirement”, according to the opening of the paragraph, that child benefit not be given to anybody whose children are living abroad. It seems to me that that has not been achieved, so our Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary has failed in that regard.
The Conservative party manifesto stated that we would
“reform the workings of the EU, which is too big, too bossy and too bureaucratic”.
The workings of the EU post the renegotiation remain too big, too bossy and too bureaucratic, so my Eurosceptic friend has achieved nothing.
In the Conservative party manifesto we made to the British people a pledge and a promise, on which we campaigned in, I hope, good faith. We said that we would
“reclaim power from Brussels on your behalf”—
not yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that of the British people—
“and safeguard British interests in the Single Market”.
We have not reclaimed a single power, so, in that, my Eurosceptic friend the Foreign Secretary has failed to live up to the Eurosceptic credentials of which he boasts—and with which I credit him, because the Foreign Secretary is an honourable man.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that what we needed was fundamental and far-reaching reform. We have not achieved fundamental and far-reaching reform; his Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary has, in that regard, let him down. In the renegotiations, we have not achieved anything of any great substance. On the free movement of people, we have nothing. We have so little on the issue of benefits that the great mass migration will continue. It was announced today that 257,000 people came from the European Union in the last year, 55,000 of them from Bulgaria and Romania. My Eurosceptic friend has done nothing to change that.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his Bloomberg speech:
“Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that’s been visited on our businesses.”
But that plague is to continue, and the renegotiations have done nothing to stop it. They have not summoned Moses back to try to deal with it, as I seem to remember he finally got rid of the plague of frogs that afflicted Pharaoh. On immigration, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he thought it was essential to
“restore a sense of fairness”
and
“to make our immigration system fairer and reduce the current exceptionally high level of migration from…the EU”.
Nothing has been done to achieve that.
Not only is the renegotiation a failure because it has achieved so little—it has failed to tackle the problems that we promised the British electorate we would solve—but, worse than that, we have given away our negotiating card when the European Union comes to a fundamental treaty reform of its own. The document that was settled last weekend states:
“Member states whose currency is not the euro shall not impede the implementation of legal acts directly linked to the functioning of the euro area and shall refrain from measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of economic and monetary union.”
The Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary—the honourable man to whom I referred—has managed, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to give away our most powerful negotiating card. When the European Union needs to develop the fiscal union that it has asked for, we have nothing to say because we have promised that we will do nothing.
And so we have left ourselves still on the path to a European superstate. That state has been getting bigger and bigger since we joined it in 1972—a state that has a flag; a state that has an anthem; a state that, because it is greedy, has not one but five Presidents; a state with a Parliament that has not one, but two seats of operation; a state with the symbols of statehood and the powers of a state. It has legal personality to conduct treaty negotiations. It has the legal power to make laws, and those laws are senior to our laws.
My right hon. Friend the famously Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary said that the treaty is legally robust, but he phrased himself very carefully, with the pedantry that one would hope for and expect in somebody from the Foreign Office. He said that it was robust in terms of international law. That gives it no justiciability in the courts of the European Union; it is merely taken into account.
We have a pretty worthless agreement, and we have scare stories to tell us why we should not vote no. If it was dangerous—if he thought the world would collapse on the day we voted no—why did the Prime Minister offer us a referendum? Is he some hooligan or some Yahoo who thinks it is safe to risk this nation’s future by trusting the people? When he said he ruled nothing out, surely he meant it. Surely he was not saying that, in fact, he was always going to go along with whatever our friends in Brussels said, because the Prime Minister is a most trustworthy figure, who negotiates in good faith. That is the problem with all that underlies this negotiation.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is always very daunting to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). There has been much talk today about whether sovereignty is an illusion. I know that the notion of parliamentary sovereignty is one that many hon. Members for English constituencies hold dear. I want to address that issue of sovereignty, and to make a plea for respect for the different constitutional tradition in Scotland in relation to sovereignty.
After his statement on Monday, I asked the Prime Minister to confirm whether it was his intention to unveil a British sovereignty Bill in the next few days, as has been widely reported, and what provision he would make in the Bill to recognise that the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle that has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. He confirmed his view:
“We do have a sovereign Parliament…and I look forward to bringing forward some proposals in the coming days.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 53.]
We await his proposals with bated breath, but he did not address my comments about the difference between English and Scottish constitutional legal theory. I rather had the impression that he did not know what I was talking about. I do not mean that disrespectfully, because I am very well aware that he is a distinguished scholar with a first from Oxford, but I believe it is in PPE rather than in law.
Every lawyer with a Scots law degree knows that there is a tradition of the sovereignty of the people in Scotland. I know that that conflicts with the Diceyan tradition in England, but many distinguished Scottish jurists have put it on a very firm footing. They include Lord President Cooper in the well-known Scottish case of MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate in 1953 and, most recently, Lord Hope of Craighead in his dicta on a case about the Hunting Act 2004, Jackson v. the Attorney General. Lord Hope said that
“Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute… It is no longer right to say that its freedom to legislate admits of no qualification whatever. Step by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute legislative sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being qualified…The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based.”
Sir William Cash
May I refer the hon. and learned Lady to chapter 12 of “The Rule of Law” by the late Lord Justice Bingham, in which he severely criticises other members of the Supreme Court for taking what he would describe as a wrong view of the whole question of sovereignty?
Joanna Cherry
I am very well aware of Lord Bingham’s opinion of the views expressed in the Jackson case. I am not saying they are binding precedents—they are opinions. My point is that the opinion of Lord Hope of Craighead in Jackson and of Lord President Cooper in the 1953 case are very well founded in Scottish historical tradition.
We heard much in the Chamber last year about Magna Carta, which was signed at Runnymede in 1215. Arbroath is Scotland’s Runnymede, and Scotland’s Magna Carta is the Declaration of Arbroath. It recognised that the people, not Parliament, are sovereign in Scotland. That is the difference between Scottish and English constitutional law, which is of long standing, and I ask the Government to reflect that in their Bill on British sovereignty.
The Declaration of Arbroath was a letter, written by the nobility of Scotland to the Pope in 1320, that asserted the nationhood of Scotland, our right to independence and the right of the Scottish people to choose their King—the people’s sovereignty. Most importantly, the Declaration of Arbroath said that the independence of Scotland was the prerogative of the Scottish people, rather than the King of Scots, and that the nobility—at that time, the nobility were, for these purposes, the people of Scotland—would choose someone else to be king if Robert the Bruce proved unfit in maintaining Scotland’s independence. That last point has been interpreted by many scholars as an early expression of the notion of popular sovereignty—that Government is contractual and that kings can be chosen by the community, rather than by God alone. We find that notion of popular sovereignty in other modern democracies that consider themselves to be governed by the rule of law, rather than parliamentary sovereignty. Of course, law can have many sources.
Alex Salmond
Is it not also correct that the community of the realm passage, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, has been cited in a Senate resolution as an inspiration for the American declaration of popular sovereignty, the declaration of independence?
Joanna Cherry
My right hon. Friend is quite correct. Many of the founding fathers of the American constitution were of Scots descent and therefore drew on the Declaration of Arbroath in framing it.
Anyone who doubts that there is a firm foundation for the notion that in Scotland the people are sovereign should look to the writings of the late Professor Neil MacCormick, who was regius professor emeritus of public law and the law of nature and nations at the University of Edinburgh. He was a distinguished Scottish nationalist and the son of the petitioner in the MacCormick case that I mentioned earlier, as well as being an internationally recognised jurist. Nobody could doubt his eminence in the field of public law and constitutional theory.
What I am asking for is respect when this Parliament comes to debate the Prime Minister’s Bill that deals with British sovereignty, if that is what we are going to have. I understand that many hon. Members from England hold Dicey’s doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty very dear and I am aware that it can be traced back to Tudor times and beyond. I am sure that they will be keen to preserve it, insofar as it has not suffered many knocks already.
However, we were told repeatedly during the Scottish independence referendum that Scotland was an equal partner in the Union. Therefore, I am sure that hon. Members from England, including the Prime Minister and the Government, will wish to accord the Scottish doctrine of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland equal respect. When our two Parliaments united in 1707, it was not the case that the English Parliament somehow swallowed whole the Scottish Parliament. It was a Union of two Parliaments. Therefore, it is not logical to say that the English notion of the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament should reign supreme, and that the Scottish notion of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people should be ignored.
In fact, it is often said that the advocates of parliamentary sovereignty are defending a doctrine that not even the higher English judiciary believe in any more. It is interesting to observe—I am very indebted to my friend, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for drawing this to my attention—that Dicey himself, in his ardent opposition to Irish home rule, was prepared to depart from his doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. In 1913, Dicey contended that if Asquith’s Home Rule Bill was enacted by this Parliament, it
“would have no constitutional validity as a law”
and that
“it would be justifiable for the Ulster Unionists to resort to rebellion, if necessary, to prevent Irish Home Rule”.
If any hon. Members are interested in the reference for that, I can give it to them later. So even Dicey himself was prepared to depart from the notion that the English Parliament was wholly sovereign.
If the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy is compromised in English law, even by its greatest exponent, there is all the more reason for the UK Government to recognise that it has no counterpart in Scotland, to tread carefully when they bring forward their British sovereignty Bill and to accord some respect to the different notions of sovereignty across these islands.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
In the same year as the 1975 referendum, Peter Finch won an Oscar for his role in the film “Network”, with its cry, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this anymore!” It is that sense of alienation from the elites that I believe will drive the vote to exit the European Union on 23 June.
Look around us. Why do hon. Members, particularly those who advocate our remaining in the European Union, think that the Chamber is barely full? Can they not see a link between the growing power of the European Union and its influence on our democracy, and the fact that we are trapped here in this Ruritanian palace, with diminishing powers to influence our fellow citizens?
I have always been a consistent patriot in terms of my opposition to the sometimes defeatist, sycophantic and self-loathing attitude of too many people, which has been rampant in my party for too long. I opposed the crazy policy in 1997 of ruling out the single currency for one Parliament, and I opposed the policy of “wait and see”—as if people would “wait and see” whether they wanted to board the Titanic. I have supported the policy of opposing the single currency, which my party has held for 10 years.
Like many Conservative MPs, I wished the Prime Minister well in his negotiations with other EU states, and I kept my counsel, hoping that the pledges he made in the Bloomberg speech in January 2013 would be enacted. Sadly, they were not. The EU is not willing to reform itself in a way that I believe would be beneficial and desirable to secure its own long-term future, and its leaders remain wedded to a bureaucratic, sclerotic political behemoth, disdainful of popular democratic accountability and national sensitivities, hurtling towards greater and ever closer union, and unconcerned by the serious and profound reservations of the British people and their elected representatives. As I said, in my opinion the European Union has already inflicted huge damage on the economies of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland in the pursuit of monetary dogma and ideological obsessions, driven by the mania of a single currency that operates across a hugely disparate and discrete economic area, primarily at the behest of German monetary policy.
In truth, the EU is a concept whose time has come and gone—an anachronism. Within 20 years, only $1 in $6 of world trade will be within the European Union. In the past six years the UK has run a £59 billion deficit with the EU, but a massive surplus across the world, and we cannot truly exploit those opportunities because we are locked into EU trade agreements, rather than our own bilateral agreements with places such as China, Mexico, Brazil, India, South Africa and Canada—markets that would generate British jobs and prosperity.
The negotiations have been a failure. They are crumbs from the table. The process has been depressing, and an historic opportunity for proper reform has been lost, perhaps forever. The Prime Minister asked for very little and he got less than that. Any changes have been given grudgingly. We have failed to abide by our manifesto commitment on child benefit, and no powers have been repatriated to the House of Commons. The European Court of Justice still takes precedence over UK law, there is no guarantee that the UK’s demands or “exceptions” will be incorporated in any new treaties, and the whole deal is legally unenforceable.
One always views issues through the prism of one’s own constituency, and I am surprised and disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) did not mention immigration, given that he co-chairs the cross-party group on balanced migration. My constituency has seen the effects of globalisation and the free movement directive. Part of that has been good, but it has also meant slum housing, low wages, welfare and health tourism, and people trafficking. People have concluded—quite rightly—that the UK must control its own borders, who comes to the country, and for what reason. The EU denies that aspiration and makes such control impossible now and at any time in the future.
Mr Jackson
I will not I am afraid because I do not have the time.
We have been told by the plutocratic, self-interested elite, the City, the media, the establishment and the snobby intelligentsia that looks down on ordinary voters that we must stay at the heart of Europe, fight our corner and reform within. That has failed and it is a fool’s errand to believe that it will not be a calamitous failure in the future. We know what Brexit will be like, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has said.
In conclusion, all power is a leasehold given to us on trust, and it is not ours to give away. For too long we have been selling the democratic family silver—as Macmillan would have said—traducing our own sovereign Parliament and its powers. I trust my constituents to make the right decision, and I will campaign enthusiastically to leave the European Union.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in today’s important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My party, the Greens, welcomes the referendum. Our position is strongly in favour of staying in the EU. Since we have been talking a lot about passion this afternoon, I will admit that, yes, I do feel passionately about this cause. That is not because I support the Prime Minister’s renegotiation—by and large I do not. What is at stake is much bigger than the small beans of his discussions. It is not because I think the EU is perfect. It is not. But do you know what? This place is not perfect either, and I have not heard Brexit supporters suggest recently that we leave the House of Commons. It is not just because our EU membership has given us some of the strongest protection for the environment, wildlife and nature, although it most certainly has. And it is not only because there is a very strong economic case for staying in, although there most certainly is. No, above all, the Greens are in favour of the UK remaining in the EU because this is a choice about the kind of country we want to be, the kind of people we are and the kind of future we want for our children and grandchildren. The choice before us is about more than a transactional calculation. It is about whether we are outward looking and confident about our place in the world. It is about whether, in a world beset by economic, security and ecological problems that transcend borders, we believe we can do better by working together, co-operating and collaborating than by turning our backs on our closest neighbours.
Over recent weeks and months, we have seen a blossoming of alternative, radical pro-EU movements: Students4Europe, Scientists for EU, Environmentalists for Europe and Another Europe is Possible. Both in the UK and across Europe, progressive movements are growing and linking up, sharing a vision for a Europe of democracy, sustainability and social justice.
Having spent more than 10 years in the European Parliament as an MEP, I am under absolutely no illusions about the flaws of the EU and the need for reform. I was confronted almost daily with the fact that its original big idea—to bring peace to post-war Europe by binding its nations together in an ambitious free trade project—is no longer enough to sustain public support for the EU. Indeed, for some its narrow focus on economism alone is actually fuelling opposition to it.
I am very clear that the EU needs to become more democratic, transparent, accessible and accountable, and that it needs a new big idea based on sustainability and social justice. Nevertheless, the European story goes to the heart of what the referendum is about. It is a remarkable story: countries with different histories and cultures coming together and choosing to share some degree of sovereignty, while keeping their own identities and traditions to work together for the common good, and to achieve more together than they can alone. For all its cumbersome processes and procedures, it is quite extraordinary that, on this troubled continent that historically has been so prone to conflict, it is now inconceivable that there will be war between us. We resolve our differences now not on the battlefield but in the debating chamber.
I know I have used the dreaded “s” word, sovereignty, so let me say a few more words about it. I know that for some hon. Members sovereignty is an absolute like pregnancy—either you are, or you are not—yet in today’s interdependent world of multilateral agreements and processes, real sovereignty is inevitably relative. A recent splendid article in The Economist puts it very clearly:
“A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws…are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea.”
Indeed! It strikes me as very odd that the very same people who are most concerned about what they perceive as a loss of sovereignty in the EU are entirely relaxed about the much greater loss of sovereignty involved in us signing up to damaging trade agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Such agreements are designed to grant sweeping rights to corporations to sue democratically elected Governments for potential loss of profit if they dare to legislate on behalf of the public interest to protect public health or vital natural resources. It is inconsistent and hypocritical to argue that the UK should leave the EU because of a loss of democracy and sovereignty, while at the same time being among the biggest supporters of the UK signing more secretive and dodgy anti-democratic deals. I recognise that however much I oppose TTIP—and I do—we are not going to extricate ourselves from it by leaving the EU, not least because the UK Government are among the biggest and loudest cheerleaders for it and they would be putting it into bilateral agreements as soon as we left.
In the short time I have left, I want to set out a few of the Green priorities for a reformed EU. These are the reforms that we will be fighting for not just during this referendum, but hopefully in the weeks and months following. Some of the greatest benefits from our EU membership come from workplace and environmental protections, but we need those social and environmental standards to be given primacy over single market rules and competitiveness. With the recent action against Google’s compulsive tax-dodging tendencies, we have seen the value of EU-wide action. There is again further to go—on banking and tax justice, banking regulation, including an EU-wide financial tax and tougher EU rules to close tax loopholes and tackle tax fraud and evasion.
There are a whole range of ways by which we could right now make the EU more transparent and accountable and more democratic, if the political will is there, but we need to be in it to change it. My plea to Members in the Chamber today and beyond is for us please to stay in the EU. Let us make it into the vehicle that could be and, in our dreams, it is.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Even before we get into the machinations of referendums and the pros and cons of Brexit, let us note that the European influence on our very language has been around a while, with Spanish omelettes, German measles, Dutch auctions and, more risqué, French letters and French kissing—well, we are talking European affairs, are we not?
What was once a continent across the channel with a faint novelty value is now being painted by many people as something sinister that is to be feared and demonised. It is regrettable that the word “Europe” seems to conjure up all sorts of phenomena. Its opponents put on the frighteners, mostly about migration as a proxy for all sorts of other things, but it has many dimensions that go much wider than that.
At the time of the last referendum, when I was three, the chief association with Europe was economic: it was the European Economic Community. There is a picture of Mrs Thatcher in a patchwork dress made of European flags. Then in the ’80s, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) described, the idea of social Europe took root and attitudes changed on the left. The idea of Europe as a capitalist club was dissolved. On all those and many other fronts—the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned climate change, which knows no borders—it is vital for us to stay in Europe, because the case to act with our European partners is compelling.
Leaving behind our biggest trading partner would put jobs and growth at risk, as Members have said. The mere mention of the date of the referendum caused turmoil in the markets, which should be viewed as a precursor of things to come if the result goes the way of leaving. When I meet Europhobes on doorsteps and ask them which directive is interfering with their lives, they are always at a loss to say anything. It is not the European working time directive; it is not worker protection via maternity or paternity leave; it is not EU competition agreements, which have brought down airline ticket prices and roaming charges. It is by working together with our European partners that we can catch criminals, through mechanisms such as the European arrest warrant. Like climate change, criminals do not operate within national borders.
Our small island is much stronger with the combined might of 28 nation states than we ever could be alone. The implications are wide ranging. I came here from the university sector, in which there is great worry about European science funding, which is massively derived from the EU budget. Even student mobility programmes that allow us make broad-minded cultural exchanges, such as Erasmus, are threatened.
Europe is not an easy puzzle to solve; like a Rubik’s cube, it has several interlocking challenges across its nation states and between them. Members have described today the refugee crisis, the worrying rise in anti-Semitism, biting austerity and Greece going bust, not to mention the existential crisis that we face when we have to decide between in and out. Reforming our alliance with Europe is not about a wham bam thank you ma’am shotgun wedding; it is a long process.
In many senses, our existing relationship with Europe could be described as somewhat semi-detached. We never were in the euro—thanks to Gordon Brown—or in Schengen. That predates Friday’s so-called deal. I remember an old Conservative slogan about being “in Europe, but not led by Europe”, and I think there is something in that.
In an age of globalisation, we are part of numerous international alliances. John Kerry and President Obama have said that the special transatlantic relationship would be at risk if we left Europe. Even the heir to our throne, Prince William, has said this week that the UK is enormously strengthened by our broader partnerships in NATO, the UN and so forth. Even our historical ties to the Commonwealth—the ex-British empire on which the sun supposedly never set—provide no impediment to European membership, because the two are not mutually exclusive.
Let us not forget that, as was pointed out at the beginning of this epic debate many hours ago, since the formation of the original European Coal and Steel Community and throughout the days of both the European Economic Community and the European Union, Europe has kept the peace. Let us also remember that previous generations been ravaged by two world wars during a short space of time.
As I am a London Member of Parliament, I might as well mention our nation’s great capital. From its centre all the way out to its multi-ethnic suburbs, it is a globalised mega-city. The attention-seeking endorsement of the leave campaign by our London Mayor—who moonlights as the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip—after a calculated period of indecision is completely out of step with our outward-facing, polyglot capital. I should add that when the Mayor visited my constituency, our vote went up by 13% and I won. Let us hope that his dalliance on the wrong side of the argument works again.
I return to the continental words that have appeared in our lexicon. When I think of the way in which the Prime Minister was boxed into a corner by the lunatic fringe of his own party, two words spring to my mind. I will not mention Schadenfreude, because we would not wish that on anyone, would we? “Bête noire”, however, seems to be what Europe has become for the Conservative party.
Let all of us—Members in all parts of the House—who believe in the right side of this argument encourage everyone to repeat the 1975 referendum result, so that we can remain in the European Union, European affairs can proceed to their next chapter and we can continue to build the European project.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
This has been an excellent debate. I have recently sat through a number of EU debates in the Chamber that have been much less powerful and have centred on just one side of the argument, and I have listened ad infinitum to dry arguments about process. However, today’s debate has not been like that. The starting gun—the announcement of the date of the referendum—has opened the door to both sides of the argument and raised the level of the debate.
We have heard a number of outstanding contributions today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) set out the arguments for remaining in the European Union very clearly, in a speech that balanced high eloquence with pragmatism. I could not fail to refer to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), which I think we would all agree was passionate and eloquent. If I may say so, it was worthy of his grandfather. It was one of the best speeches that I have heard during my time in the House.
Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) made thoughtful and measured contributions, while my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) made the patriotic, progressive case for remaining in the EU. Although I did not agree with his comments about an independent Scotland, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) spoke passionately about the formation of the EU and the dividend of peace. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) entertained us with a personal story about the practical everyday importance of the European health card to European citizens on holiday.
On this issue, Labour is united. The parliamentary Labour party, constituency Labour parties up and down the country, the Labour membership, and, according to the results of polling over time, the vast majority of Labour voters believe that Britain is safer, stronger and more prosperous as part of the European Union. That is our view, and that is what we will campaign on. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) made it clear that Labour voters would be crucial in the referendum. I think that trade union members will be as well—and women.
A couple of weeks ago, I witnessed a conversation between a husband and wife. I observed the conversation, rather than taking part in it. The husband, who is a maths graduate, said, “I am interested in chaos theory, so I would be quite interested to see what would happen if we left the European Union, because I do not think it would look like what either side is saying it would look like.” His wife leaned across the table and said to him, “Don’t you dare! I have three kids, and this is about my children’s future.” I think that such conversations will happen increasingly as we move towards the referendum. Mothers and grandmothers will be making decisions that will have an impact on the future of this country, and I think that, in making those decisions, they will recognise that Britain has become a rich country as part of the European Union: the fifth biggest economy in the world, and the second biggest in the EU.
I am old enough to remember a time before our membership, when our national newspapers were fond of calling this great country the sick old man of Europe. If that was ever true, it is no longer true. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) asked, “If we are not in Schengen and we are not in the eurozone, what is the point of being in the EU?” Well, millions of jobs depend directly or indirectly upon our being a member of the EU. In my area of the north-east, 70% of the trade that we do is with the EU. In one city in the north-east we make more cars in one month than Italy does in a year. If we go to Teesport or the Port of Tyne, we see line after line of cars that are being exported from this country to the EU. As a country, nearly 50% of our trade is with the EU. We carried out £44 billion of trade last year, and we received £1.2 trillion of investment, a third of it directly from the EU.
Pat Glass
No; the hon. Gentleman has had the floor quite a lot today.
A third of that trade is from the EU, but the remainder is from countries outside the EU solely because we are a gateway to the EU.
I have listened to the arguments from the outers who believe that the world is just lining up to enter into trade agreements with us once we leave the EU, but they should stop talking and listening to each other and start listening to what the rest of the world is telling us. I was in Sweden this week, where the Government told me that of course they want to continue trading with the UK if we leave, but only as part of a trade deal worked out with the EU. Such a deal would cost us heavily and require that we conform to the same rules and regulations as the rest of the Europe, including the free movement of people. The idea that we can magically walk away from the EU and yet retain advantageous trade deals that exist only because we are a member of the EU is, quite frankly, la-la land. At a time when we are facing increasing dangers from international terrorism, international crime, climate change and Russian expansionism, it is dangerous to think that it is a good idea to sit isolated on the edge of the biggest trading group in the world.
Labour will campaign in this referendum to remain in the EU not as it is, but as it could be. We want to see Europe deal with some of the issues that we cannot deal with alone—not just international terrorism and crime, war and migration across the world and climate change, but exploitative practices by employers who seek to undercut the wages of workers and international tax evasion by global companies. We cannot hope to deal with the Googles of this world alone; we can only do that with our partners.
Finally, I want to talk to the young people out there who may be listening to this debate. The EU was formed not as a political experiment or project, nor just as an economic market; its first purpose was to stop the regular slaughter that went on in western Europe every 30 years. I appreciate that the EU is not the only reason why my son is not lying in some cold grave outside Ypres or Thiepval as my great-grandfather and his brother are, but we now settle our differences around a negotiating table and not on a battlefield. I absolutely appreciate how difficult it is to get agreement between 28 countries, but surely it is far, far better than what went before. The peace dividend of the EU is huge and is as important today as it was in 1945. I want us to vote to remain in the EU, to ensure that the killing fields of 1914 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945 do not happen again to the young people of our country, today or at any time in the future.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
May I first congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate this afternoon?
Mr Rees-Mogg
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought the Minister might begin with an apology for the absence of the Foreign Secretary. It is custom for senior Ministers who have opened debates to return for the end of them. On such an important matter, it is a rather surprising discourtesy to the House that the normal convention has not been observed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. What I would say is that it is the choice of the Foreign Secretary, and who knows, we may hear something yet, as the Minister for Europe has so far only managed to get three words out.
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is meticulous in his courtesies to this House, but sometimes Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have to deal with extremely urgent matters to do with this country’s national security.
I want to single out the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), as anybody who heard it, whichever side of this argument they stand on, will remember it as one of the great parliamentary set pieces of their years in this place.
I do not want to dwell at length on the arguments about renegotiation, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went into them in great detail and answered questions about the subject for three hours on Monday. I simply say that I have sat through a fair number of these debates in the last six years, and I will be the first to say to my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that they are models of consistency in their opposition to British membership of the European Union. If the Prime Minister had come back from Brussels brandishing the severed heads of the members of the European Commission and proceeded to conduct an auto-da-fé in Downing Street of copies of the Lisbon treaty, they would still be saying, “This is feeble, insufficient, not enough.”
Mr Lidington
No, I want to deal with what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said, as he raised some serious issues about the impact of a British withdrawal upon the devolved Administrations, particularly, but not exclusively, Scotland’s. It is for the Government of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom being the member state party to the treaties, to decide whether to trigger an article 50 process after such a referendum result. But he is right to say that there would be some pretty complicated outworkings of British departure from the EU for all three devolved Administrations and for the United Kingdom and English statute book, because a fair number of Acts of Parliament reflect European law as it has developed over the past 40 years. Those things would have to be gone through, both in the two years’ negotiations following the triggering of article 50 and, I suspect, in the years subsequent.
Alex Salmond
Does the Minister understand the point here? If there is not to be a vote in this place because it is superseded by a popular sovereignty vote for out, what would be the circumstances, under the Sewel convention, of a vote in the Scottish Parliament if the popular vote in Scotland had been for in?
Mr Lidington
The United Kingdom is the signatory to the European treaties, and therefore it is the UK Government who take the decision on whether to invoke article 50.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) raised important points about what he saw as security risks from people who had migrated to Germany crossing to the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said, accurately, that we have some pretty effective security arrangements at our borders and that the record shows not only that the chief terrorist threat to the United Kingdom too often comes from British citizens, but that there have been terrorist incidents abroad that have been brought about by people who were British born and bred. In Germany, it takes eight to 10 years for someone to get citizenship, and they have to have a clean criminal record, pass an integration test and show that they have an independent source of income. It is probably because those tests are so rigorous that only 2.2% of refugees in Germany take German citizenship and get German passports. What we can and do do here is stop people, including EU citizens, at our borders and refuse entry to anyone about whom there is information of terrorist links. Some of my hon. Friends overlook the fact that our safeguards against terrorism are stronger precisely because we are party to the various European agreements on data sharing and information sharing, such as on passenger name records, which we would be outwith if we were to leave the European Union and were unable to negotiate some alternative arrangement.
The key question in deciding our position on membership is one my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) touched on: how will we be better able to control our destiny and influence for good the lives of the people whom we represent? The point that the leave campaigners must face is that the alternatives that we see—most notably Norway and Switzerland—are countries that, in order to get free trade and the single market, have had to accept not only all the EU regulations that govern those matters without any say or vote in determining them, but the free movement of people and a duty to contribute to the EU budget. That is not sovereignty, but kingship with a paper crown. It would not bring the power to shape European policy and co-operation for the benefit of the people whom we are sent here to represent from all parts of the United Kingdom.
What has dismayed me during this debate is that, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), there has been little attempt to describe what the alternative is that will somehow enable us to have all the things that we value about European Union membership with none of the things that may matter to other Governments around Europe and which we perhaps find irksome or troubling.
Mr Lidington
No, I will not give way.
I am bemused that some of my hon. Friends have managed to convince themselves of two propositions: that other European countries are at present engaged in what has been termed a “vindictive and spiteful” attempt to harm our interests or a conspiracy to do us down; and that those same Governments will rush to give us everything that we want with none of the downsides if only we vote to leave. That is a fanciful analysis of European politics today. If we accept that we want a single market, we must have the EU rules that go with it and the other costs, such as those that Norway and Switzerland have to pay today.
We are putting so much at risk at a time of real peril not just for this country but for the whole of the west. We face a massive economic challenge from global competition and digital technology; a challenge from transnational crime and global terrorism; the collapse of states in parts of Africa and the middle east, which has allowed terrorism, people trafficking and drug trafficking to flourish; and the challenge from a newly aggressive Russia in both eastern Europe and the middle east. No one country in Europe, not even the biggest, will be able to tackle those challenges on its own. That is why our key allies—not just those in Europe, but the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—see the United Kingdom as stronger and more influential in the world as a leader in our own continent. I am dismayed by the insouciant attitude of those who want to leave to the risk that their campaign poses of the possible fragmentation of the west. It is truly shocking.
We need to have confidence in this country’s ability to lead and shape events in Europe, as we have done in creating the single market, in pioneering free trade deals, in organising a firm response through sanctions to Russian aggression in Ukraine and to Iran’s nuclear programme, and in defeating piracy in the Indian ocean.
The United Kingdom should be confident in our ability to work with allies in Europe and around the world. We should not see the two things as in any way contradictory. As we look to the future and face again the challenges of large-scale migration driven by terrorism, failed states, climate change and economic problems in much of the developing world, we need to work together with our partners and our allies, because none of us can tackle that on our own. We see the United Kingdom today as a European power with global interests and global influence. Those two aspects of this country are not contradictory; they complement one another. We need to go forward with the confidence and optimism that the United Kingdom can help make a better future not just for every family in this country but for all the nations of the wider European family. That is the case that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be putting to the country in the months to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered European affairs.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Have the Government given any indication that they might be interested in making a statement about guidance that they have given to civil servants to restrict information to Ministers during the period of the referendum, which involves concealing information that is being used by other Ministers for campaigning purposes?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The Minister for Europe is desperate to answer.
Mr Lidington
I am happy to respond. The Prime Minister responded to this point in answer to questions on Monday. The Government have a very clear position, which is to recommend to the country that people vote to remain members of a reformed European Union. Quite exceptionally, Ministers are being allowed to depart from the normal rules on collective responsibility in order to dissent from the official Government position on that referendum question, but the civil service exists to serve and support the policy agreed by the Government of the day. The letter published by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, subsequently extended by formal guidance from the Cabinet secretary to civil servants, does no more than give effect to that policy.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The simple answer is that I have had no notification that anybody is going to make a statement. I can do no more than allow the Minister for Europe to reply.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does the Minister accept that the position that he has just explained comes to an end when the purdah period starts?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Let me help everybody. We are not going into a debate. That is the end of it. We need to move on.
Transport: Glossop and High Peak
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
This is the second time that I have called a debate on the roads in and around Glossop, and I make no apology for debating the subject again in the Chamber. I have called a second debate tonight because of the events of recent weeks, when the inadequacy of these roads has created more misery for my constituents. Such is the strength of feeling about the matter among people who live in High Peak, particularly in Glossop, that there is now a petition on the parliamentary website created by my constituent David Saggerson. As we know, such petitions will trigger a debate if they receive 100,000 signatures. I did not want to wait for that so I am using the Adjournment debate mechanism to hold the debate that almost 3,000 people have already signed up for.
It was recently reported that the viewing figures for the BBC Parliament channel had hit an all-time high. If those figures were measured again tonight around Glossop, and perhaps also in Stalybridge and Hyde, I am sure they would be even greater. That is not because of my constituents’ desire to follow every word and deed of their Member of Parliament—I wish that were so—but it is testament to the desperate need felt in and around Glossop for a solution to the deplorable situation facing residents as they attempt to go about their everyday business. I feel sure that following tonight’s debate, the Minister’s and my own Twitter feeds will see a significant increase in traffic, as will my Facebook page.
In the time allowed, I cannot begin to convey the frustration felt by my residents about this issue, but I intend to try. From our previous conversations I know that the Minister is aware of the situation, but I shall add some background and context.
The Mottram-Tintwistle bypass has become almost as fabled as the Loch Ness monster. Governments of all colours have threatened and promised to deliver it and have conspicuously failed. When I was first elected in 2010, I was conscious of the need to promise my best efforts to deliver this badly needed and much delayed road. I and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) put aside our political differences and joined forces in an attempt to sort the issue out once and for all.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, which will be genuinely appreciated in our part of the world. I appreciate the opportunity we have had to work together constructively to make progress on the issue. In 2010, in a difficult financial climate, we were told that this was not a viable option, yet we have been able to make progress, for which I am extremely grateful, as are my constituents.
I also want briefly to thank the Minister. We have dealt with many roads Ministers over the years, but I have always found the current one attentive and genuinely serious about trying to help us. I know that he is planning to visit us very soon, which I appreciate.
The recent problems around Glossop are absolutely untenable, even for a part of the world that is used to congestion. The situation in Broadbottom, Mottram and Hollingworth was unbearable while the roadworks were taking place. The only answer is a bypass. There are two points that I hope the hon. Gentleman will address in his speech. First, the bypass must go around Hollingworth as well as Mottram; that is the comprehensive solution we need. Secondly, we need the consultation to begin as soon as possible.
Andrew Bingham
I completely agree. Politically, the hon. Gentleman and I are miles apart, but on this matter we are in total agreement, as we will continue to be.
In 2010 the hon. Gentleman and I gathered together the key organisations and commissioned our own study, which we managed to get funded, to produce evidence that would confirm what we both knew to be obvious, as did the people of Glossop, Stalybridge and Hyde, which is that the situation then, as now, was unacceptable. The roads are simply not up to the needs of our residents. In the ensuing time we have pursued the matter relentlessly, both together and independently. That culminated in a meeting I had with the Chancellor at No. 11 Downing Street, during which I impressed on him the seriousness of the problem and how we could not ignore it any longer as it was only going to get worse.
In late 2014 I was delighted that, following our work, the Government announced the building of the Mottram Moor link road and the A57 link road, which is known locally as the Glossop spur. It was not the full solution that I have campaigned for—I will refer to that later—but we were promised that a study would be done to examine extending it to deal with the problems faced at Tintwistle in my constituency and Hollingworth in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. On that point, I strongly argue that the scheme should indeed be extended, along the lines of the original Mottram and Tintwistle bypass plan put forward years ago, because we need that for those two small villages.
I realise that the Minister will not have the intimate knowledge of the area that I do. I could embark on a long description of the road networks, the junctions and the geography, but by happy coincidence he will visit High Peak tomorrow, and I look forward to showing him the situation at first hand. Seeing it for himself will demonstrate the problem far better than any description I could give tonight. I would like to thank him in advance for visiting High Peak. Tonight I want to try to impress upon him a sense of the difficulties being faced, the impact they are having on my constituents and the urgency of the issue. In order to do that, I need to relate some of the happenings of the past few weeks.
The town of Glossop and the surrounding area are home to over 30,000 people. Despite being in the east midlands, Glossop very much faces Manchester and the north-west, for employment, leisure and many other facets of life. Consequently, there is a huge volume of traffic that heads in and through Glossop as people travel to, from and between Greater Manchester and Sheffield. There are only two effective roads heading north from Glossop to Manchester, one of which relies on a single-track bridge that was never designed to carry significant amounts of traffic. The fact that it is even considered by motorists, let alone used, proves the point I am making about the existing roads.
However, due to the congestion on the main route out of town, that route north has become a well-used alternative—until earlier this month, when a burst water main washed away the road surface in the village of Charlesworth, forcing its closure. The consequences were catastrophic. I received many emails from constituents, some of whom were leaving home well before dawn just to get out of Glossop and get to work for 9 am, and they were facing similar travel times when trying to get home. Indeed, when I was trying to get to Stalybridge one Friday evening I was forced to take a detour of several miles to complete the journey.
The closure of what is, in effect, only a back road pretty much gridlocked Glossop, and indeed the whole area, for over a week. I was informed that the chaos was such that a child who had suffered a seizure in Glossop and who needed an urgent ambulance faced an unacceptable delay, purely because of the blocked roads, so this catastrophic situation could easily have turned into a tragedy.
A further complication that week was the cancellation of trains, which meant that more cars went on to roads that were already overburdened. However, I must stress that the Minister should not think that last week’s traffic problems were the cause of the problem; they were only the result of the contributory factors I have outlined, and they only exaggerated an already truly unacceptable situation.
Earlier this week, the M62 was blocked. Yet again, trans-Pennine traffic looking for an alternative route was forced on to the Woodhead Pass, which converges with the A57 just outside Glossop. The ensuing traffic chaos caused traffic jams going back huge distances, snaking through Tintwistle and several miles beyond.
I want to focus briefly on Tintwistle, which the Minister will visit tomorrow. A constituent, Vicky Mullis, who is a resident of Tintwistle, invited me to meet the village’s residents to talk about the problems it faces. As the Minister will see tomorrow, they feel their houses physically shake as heavy goods vehicles thunder past, literally a few feet from their front doors. Furthermore, when the traffic backs up, as it did earlier this week, cars resort to taking short cuts through the village to try to get in front of the other traffic—they are using the roads as a rat run. I am trying to convince Derbyshire County Council, as the highways authority for those roads, to take action. Thus far, it seems somewhat impervious to my protestations, but I will continue.
That is why I still fully support looking at extending the proposed scheme. The scheme does much for Glossop and for parts of the constituency of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. However, it does nothing for Tintwistle, so the extension is as crucial as going ahead with the two link roads already in the programme.
There are more factors we can take into account when we consider the need for this solution. Significant planning consents have recently been granted in Glossop. That will increase the population and thereby increase traffic levels.
The imminent withdrawal of the 394 bus service from Glossop to Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport—I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) are trying to find ways to preserve the route—could move more constituents who have cars on to the roads. I could use more of the debate to talk about the 394 bus alone, because a lot of constituents are contacting me about it, and they are alarmed at the loss of that vital service. However, I want to return to the issue of traffic and to look at the economic consequences.
At the moment, a wide range of businesses operate in Glossop, covering various forms of industry, manufacturing and services, and we are always looking to attract more. However, the ongoing traffic difficulties are making it increasingly difficult to get businesses to open in Glossop. It is a thriving, fantastic town, and it is in a great position, but people are looking at it and thinking, “Hang on. How am I going to get my customers and clients in and out of the town?” They are now thinking twice about coming to Glossop and bringing in more jobs.
On top of that, I have spoken to companies based in Glossop that are really beginning to think that the traffic is suffocating the town. I fear that they we will not only not get new businesses in, but lose the businesses we already have, because they will move elsewhere as a result of the inaccessibility.
On a wider point about the economy, the A628 Woodhead Pass is a significant route connecting the east and the west of the country. I applaud the Chancellor for his work on the northern powerhouse, and it is a great initiative, but for it to work properly the two ends of the powerhouse—the east and the west, Sheffield and Manchester—need to link up. The route-based strategy on the M62, which was produced some time ago, already flags up the fact that the M62 is nearing capacity. That increases the significance of the A628 as a trans-Pennine route. If we look at other trans-Pennine routes, we see that there is the A69 in the north and then the M62; the next one down is the A628. All this congestion is therefore blocking a vital artery connecting the east and the west, and I have a welter of statistics and evidence to prove that. I know the Minister will have seen it, because some of it comes from studies carried out by his own Department.
I have tried to encapsulate the situation as best I can in the time allowed. Much will become clearer tomorrow when the Minister visits, but I do want to impress on him the seriousness of the situation.
I am delighted that the Government agreed to build this road. It was announced in December 2014. The Prime Minister himself, in an answer to me at Prime Minister’s Question Time, confirmed that a future Conservative Government would build the road. I was delighted with that. I have that copy of Hansard pinned on my office wall to remind me what we have promised, and I intend to deliver on that promise if we can. However, the delight and expectations that were raised in late 2014 are turning into frustration because the wait goes on. In Glossop, it is now not just the Government’s reputation that is at stake; I have made a commitment to my constituents, and I am determined to stick to it. I keep repeating this, but I cannot stress it enough: I cannot begin to describe the groundswell of public opinion on this matter.
Many people across Glossop will be watching this debate tonight. They will watch it later on YouTube or whatever medium they want to use. Two constituents, Robert McColl and his son Kallen, have travelled down here specially to be in the Public Gallery to listen to this, such is the desire of the people of Glossop to sort the problem out and sort it quickly. We know that one part of the road is going to be built—the two relief roads. That is great, because we need that extended scheme for the people of Tintwistle and of Hollingworth in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I urge the Minister—I have known him for years, and he is a man of honour and integrity—to give my constituents, and indeed me, some hope that this process can be conducted quickly and with urgency so that we can see spades in the ground as soon as possible.
It is now quarter past 5 on a Thursday evening. If this was live on the radio, there would be people sat on the A57 and the A628, and sat around Glossop, listening to it, saying, “Minister, let’s hear what we want to hear. We need this road, we’re sat in this traffic, we’re starving the town, we’re starving High Peak.” I do not exaggerate: this is the biggest single issue facing the Glossopdale area. If it is not resolved, it will have catastrophic effects on everybody. The people of Glossop and I are desperate—we cannot carry on like this any longer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) on securing this debate. He is a great champion for his constituency and has made his case with his customary eloquence and passion. I am thoroughly looking forward to visiting his area tomorrow morning.
Let me start by putting the transport agenda as a whole into some overall context. Transport really does boost our economy. It connects us, gives us more choice about where we work and live, and creates jobs. Well-maintained roads and motorways are an essential part of a modern vibrant economy. That is why in December 2014 the Government launched the road investment strategy, which outlines how £15.2 billion will be invested in our strategic roads between now and 2021. This is the biggest upgrade to our strategic roads in a generation.
The Department for Transport clearly recognises how important improved connectivity and better journeys are for Glossop and High Peak. That is why the road investment strategy contained several proposals in the area. Collectively, this package will address congestion and improve journey times between Manchester and Sheffield, as well issues to do with the safety and resilience of the route. The routes between Manchester and Sheffield provide a key connection between two of our most important northern cities, and Glossop is a key town on that route.
Currently the journey times and the performance of the connecting roads compare most unfavourably against similar routes. It is not just Glossop we must consider, but Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle, which are also heavily dependent on the A57 and A628. I understand that elements of the route, particularly the A628, experience delays and have a poor safety record, impacting on the communities on the route and on the environment of the Peak District national park as a whole. The communities in High Peak endure high levels of traffic throughout the day and consequently suffer unduly from air pollution and noise. Economic activity in the area, as my hon. Friend has so eloquently said, is also inhibited by the lack of capacity on the roads.
The proposals in the road investment strategy will improve conditions for Glossop and Mottram. Highways England is exploring how the benefits might also be extended to Hollingworth and Tintwistle. I will personally take up the issue with Highways England and make sure that it sees a transcript of this debate and hears the concerns expressed so eloquently by my hon. Friend.
The direct route by road from Glossop to Manchester is principally the A57 and, for a 5-mile-long section, the M67. The section of the A57 used to reach the M67 is an entirely single-lane highway that passes through the very busy town of Mottram. In the other direction to Sheffield, the A57 winds its way through the Peak District national park along the appropriately named Snake Road or Snake Pass. The A57 in both directions is busy throughout the day and, given that it features extensive lengths of single-lane road, is extremely vulnerable to delays caused by congestion or accidents that can block it. Given the location, the A57 is also very vulnerable to adverse weather conditions.
Anybody who lives in the midlands or the north of England will know that there have been long-standing calls for improvements to connectivity. We have heard those calls and have provided a package of proposals that will significantly improve the road journey between Manchester and South Yorkshire.
Andrew Bingham
The Minister has talked at length about the A57, but will he also mention the A628, particularly the Woodhead Pass, which people will have heard of because the traffic is always being mentioned on the radio? The A628 converges with the A57 just outside Glossop and is another significant trans-Pennine route that goes to Barnsley. For those travelling on the M1 from the south, the signpost to Manchester will guide them to the A628, which then converges with the A57.
Andrew Jones
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I plan to use the A628 to reach him tomorrow morning. I have already planned my route, so I understand his point.
We recognise that the routes need substantial improvement to meet the needs of the local economy and the environment and better to fulfil their role in our national transport network. That relates to trans-Pennine connectivity and we should not forget that, as well as serving local communities and businesses, the routes also play a broader national role.
The trans-Pennine upgrade programme seeks to improve journeys through a number of schemes, including a new dual carriageway creating a Mottram Moor link road; a new single carriageway link from Mottram Moor to Brookfield; further dualling on the A61; and climbing lanes on the A628. A number of other smaller measures will also be put in place to address the accident blackspots. We are very aware of the specific environmental protections that are in place in and around those locations, including special areas of conservation and sites of special scientific interest. We will, therefore, work closely with the national park authority.
For any proposals to go ahead, they will need to be sensitively designed and their potential impacts will have to be properly assessed and understood so that the improvements are in keeping with the significance of the park’s protected landscape. As part of the process of developing and delivering the investment, consultation will take place with local communities and stakeholders. That will include the scope and viability of further improvements and extensions to the Mottram Moor link road that would alleviate the issues faced in Tintwistle and Hollingworth. Highways England has been developing options for each of those schemes, to determine how best to meet the transport needs of the local communities while addressing environmental and other concerns. That balance needs to be achieved. Early consultation with key stakeholders such as the local authorities, utilities companies and the Peak District national park authority is already informing the development and assessment of the options.
I anticipate that a full public consultation will commence in April 2017, and the next step would be to submit an application for a development consent order in summer or early autumn 2018.
Jonathan Reynolds
In addition to the Minister’s visit tomorrow, he will probably find in his red box a letter from me, saying that we would be extremely grateful if he would consider binging forward the public consultation to the end of 2016. I know he is not be able to give a commitment on that now, but it would generate so much good will and make the project proceed faster, which would be tremendous.
Andrew Jones
I give an undertaking to both Members who are present that I will do all I can to achieve that. They have made their case eloquently. I recognise the issues that are faced by the local communities that they represent, and we will do all we can to help.
In terms of timing, I expect that after the development consent order, we will commence construction in the financial year 2019-20, and the schemes will potentially be open for traffic three years later. I recognise the case for urgency that has been a clear theme this evening, so if it is possible to bring the dates forward, I will certainly try to do so.
The new schemes will follow recent investment that we have already made in the network. As a result of resurfacing schemes undertaken in recent years, the condition of the road surface on the A628 and the A57 has improved since 2010, resulting in a 68% reduction in the number of potholes. Works are taking place, but I recognise that we are looking at more significant, longer-term answers.
In addition to the commitments in the road investment strategy, the Department is undertaking a study on improving connections between Manchester and Sheffield by way of a trans-Pennine tunnel. Through that study, we seek to understand the viability, costs and deliverability of such a connection, and to determine its role and priority in the emerging transport strategy for the north. The construction of such a connection carries with it the potential to reduce traffic on existing routes in the area and to bring important environmental benefits to the Peak District national park.
The initial report of the trans-Pennine tunnel study was published on 30 November last year. It found that there is a clear strategic case for the scheme that is aligned with central and subnational government policy, and that the construction of a new strategic route between Manchester and Sheffield is technically feasible, although very challenging. The scale of the wider economic benefit has yet to be established, but initial analysis shows that the benefit could be significant and complementary to other schemes in the developing northern powerhouse strategy. The study’s final report will be published by the end of the year, and will be used to inform the content of our second road investment strategy.
Transport includes more than just roads, so I hope my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak will not mind if I talk a little about rail in the area. As part of the proposed northern hub capacity enhancement, Network Rail has proposed works at the eastern end of the Hope Valley line. A passing loop is to be provided east of Bamford, and the line is to be redoubled at Dore and Totley station.
Andrew Bingham
That work is very welcome to certain parts of the area, but, given the geography of High Peak, the work will not help anything on the Glossop side of the hill, because it is on the wrong side. The Minister will see that tomorrow.
Andrew Jones
I recognise that, and I look forward to seeing the detail of the geography and the challenges it presents. The challenge that we face with rail is that we have an enormous backlog of investment. The rail industry is a huge success, but that huge success brings with it the need for more capacity. There are as many people using our rail network now as there were in the late 1920s, but the network is only a fraction of the size. Governments of all colours have underinvested over many years, and we need to catch up. That is what the control period peak budget of £38 billion is about. I will take forward my hon. Friend’s point about where that work can be carried out on the Hope Valley line, and I will liaise with Network Rail on that. Rail is a key ingredient in improving connectivity in many areas. Although we are investing very heavily, we also require investment where the Hope Valley line enters the big conurbations in Manchester and Sheffield. We must also bear in mind the impact that High Speed 2 will have on such key connections.
Network Rail’s intention is to enable an increase in passenger services between Manchester and Sheffield and to improve accessibility by sustainable transport to the Peak District national park. A public inquiry into Network Rail’s application for statutory powers to undertake the scheme opens in Dore on 10 May. The independent inquiry inspector will then submit a report and recommendation to the Department for Transport. It is not therefore appropriate for me to comment any further on the scheme.
In summary, I hope I have demonstrated that this Government are committed to improving roads and transport infrastructure around Glossop and High Peak. We have made a commitment in the road investment strategy to make significant improvements to the trans-Pennine route through this area in the next few years. These enhancements to transport infrastructure will bring benefits to residents and improve the economy across the region. Such enhancements will help not only the economy, but the local community and the local environment. All those elements, which were highlighted very clearly and passionately in my hon. Friend’s speech, will be benefited by that work.
I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to make sure we get the schemes right. The point is that, as we are working in this area, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We are making a step change to travel in the area, and we need to make sure we get this right. The more local input we have, the better such decisions will be. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to improve the situation for his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
Welcome back to the final stage of our Committee proceedings.
New Clause 21
Extended Sunday opening hours and Sunday working
“(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 (which restricts the opening hours of large shops on Sundays), after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to the opening of a large shop during any other period on a Sunday in accordance with a consent notice published under paragraph 2A (subject to sub-paragraph (4)).”
(3) After that paragraph insert—
“Consent notices published by Sunday trading authorities
2A (1) The Sunday trading authority for an area may publish a notice (a “consent notice”) in accordance with this paragraph providing for large shops in the authority’s area to be permitted to do either or both of the following—
(a) to open on a Sunday for a continuous period of whatever number of hours is specified in the notice (in addition to the continuous period of six hours mentioned in paragraph 2(3));
(b) to open on a Sunday at specified times beginning earlier than, or ending later than, the times mentioned in paragraph 2(3).
(2) A consent notice published by a Sunday trading authority may apply in relation to the whole or any part of the authority’s area.
(3) A Sunday trading authority may, by publishing a further notice, vary or revoke a consent notice that applies in relation to its area.
(4) Before varying or revoking a consent notice under sub-paragraph (3), a Sunday trading authority must give reasonable notice to occupiers of large shops whose opening hours on Sundays would be affected by the variation or revocation.
(5) Publication of a notice under this paragraph may take whatever form the authority publishing it thinks appropriate for the purpose of bringing the notice to the attention of occupiers of large shops in the area to which the notice relates.
(6) Subject to sub-paragraph (7), the Sunday trading authority for an area is the local authority for the area.
(7) In relation to the area of Greater London, the Sunday trading authority is the Mayor of London acting on behalf of the Greater London Authority.”
(4) Accordingly—
(a) in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 (restrictions on Sunday opening)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (1), for “and (3)” substitute “, (3) and (3A)”;
(ii) in sub-paragraph (4), for “exemption conferred by sub-paragraph (3) above does” substitute “exemptions conferred by sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A) do”;
(b) in paragraph 6 of that Schedule (duty to display notice), after “sub-paragraph (3)” insert “or (3A)”;
(c) in paragraph 8 of that Schedule (defence to an offence of contravening opening restrictions), after “paragraph 2(3)” insert “or (3A)”;
(d) in paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 3 (loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning: application), after “paragraph 2(3)” insert “or (3A)”.
(5) Schedule (Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers), which contains amendments of employment legislation relating to the rights of shop workers to opt out of working on Sunday, has effect.”—(Brandon Lewis.)
This new Clause amends the Sunday Trading Act 1994, giving powers to local areas to extend Sunday trading hours for large shops (with a retail floor area greater than 280 square metres). The extended hours can apply to the whole or part of the local area. The new Clause also introduces a new Schedule to the Bill containing amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Act 2002 in relation to Sunday working.
Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government new schedule 1—Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers.
“Schedule
Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers
Employment Rights Act 1996
1 The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
2 In section 41 (opted-out shop workers and betting workers), for subsection (3) substitute—
(3) In this Act “notice period”, in relation to an opted-out shop worker or an opted-out betting worker, means—
(a) in the case of an opted-out shop worker who does shop work in or about a large shop, the period of one month beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given;
(b) in any other case, the period of three months beginning with that day.
This subsection is subject to sections 41D(2) and 42(2).”
3 After section 41 insert—
“41A Notice of objection by shop workers to working additional hours on Sunday
(1) A shop worker may at any time give to his or her employer a written notice, signed and dated by the shop worker, to the effect that he or she objects to doing shop work for additional hours on Sunday.
(2) In this Part—
“additional hours” means any number of hours of shop work that a shop worker is (or could be) required to work under a contract of employment on Sunday that are(or would be) in excess of the shop worker’s normal Sunday working hours;
“objection notice” means a notice given under subsection (1).
(3) The “normal Sunday working hours” of a shop worker are to be calculated in accordance with regulations.
(4) Regulations under this section may provide—
(a) for the calculation to be determined (for example) by reference to the average number of hours that the shop worker has worked on Sundays during a period specified or described in the regulations;
(b) for a calculation of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) to be varied in special cases;
(c) for the right to give an objection notice not to be exercisable in special cases (and subsection (1) is subject to provision made by virtue of this paragraph).
(5) Provision under subsection (4)( b) or (c) may, in particular, include provision—
(a) about how the calculation of normal Sunday working hours is to be made in the case of a shop worker who has not been employed for a sufficient period of time to enable a calculation to be made as otherwise provided for in the regulations;
(b) for the right to give an objection notice not to be exercisable by such a shop worker until he or she has completed a period of employment specified or described in the regulations.
(6) But regulations under this section may not include provision preventing a shop worker who has been continuously employed under a contract of employment for a period of one year or more from giving to the employer an objection notice.
(7) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
41B Explanatory statement: persons who become shop workers
(1) This section applies where a person becomes a shop worker who, under a contract of employment, is or may be required to do shop work on Sundays.
(2) The employer must give to the shop worker a written statement informing the shop worker of the following rights—
(a) the right to object to working on Sundays by giving the employer an opting-out notice (if section 40 applies to the shop worker);
(b) the right to object to doing shop work for additional hours on Sundays by giving the employer an objection notice.
(3) The statement must be given before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which the person becomes a shop worker as mentioned in subsection (1).
(4) An employer does not fail to comply with subsections (2) and (3) in a case where, before the end of the period referred to in subsection (3), the shop worker has given to the employer an opting-out notice (and that notice has not been withdrawn).
(5) A statement under this section must comply with such requirements as to form and content as regulations may provide.
(6) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
41C Explanatory statement: shop workers at commencement date
(1) This section applies where—
(a) under a contract of employment a shop worker is or may be required to do shop work on Sundays, and
(b) the shop worker was employed under that contract on the day before the commencement date.
(2) The shop worker’s employer must give to the shop worker a written statement informing the shop worker of the rights mentioned in section 41B(2).
(3) The statement must be given before the end of the period of two months beginning with the commencement date.
(4) An employer does not fail to comply with subsections (2) and (3) in a case where, before the end of the period referred to in subsection (3), the shop worker has given to the employer an opting-out notice (and that notice has not been withdrawn).
(5) A statement under this section must comply with such requirements as to form and content as regulations may provide.
(6) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
(7) In this section “commencement date” means the date appointed by regulations under section38 of the Enterprise Act 2016 for the coming into force of section (Extended Sunday opening hour and Sunday working)(5) of, and Schedule (Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers) to, that Act.
41D Failure to give explanatory statement under section 41B or 41C
(1) This section applies if an employer fails to give to a shop worker a written statement in accordance with—
(a) section 41B(2) and (3), or
(b) section 41C(2) and (3).
(2) If the shop worker gives to the employer an opting-out notice, the notice period under section 41(3) that applies in relation to the shop worker is varied as follows—
(a) if the notice period under that provision would have been one month, it becomes 7 days instead;
(b) if the notice period under that provision would have been three months, it becomes one month instead.
(3) If the shop worker gives to the employer an objection notice, the relevant period under section 43ZA(2) that applies in relation to the shop worker is varied as follows—
(a) if the relevant period under that provision would have been one month, it becomes 7 days instead;
(b) if the relevant period under that provision would have been three months, it becomes one month instead.”
4 (1) Section 42 (explanatory statement) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “statement” insert “: betting workers”.
(3) In subsection (1) omit “shop worker or”.
(4) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a) omit “shop worker or”;
(b) in paragraph (b)—
(i) after “the” omit “shop worker or”;
(ii) omit “an opted-out shop worker or”.
(5) In subsection (3) omit “shop worker or”.
(6) Omit subsection (4).
(7) In subsection (6)—
(a) for “forms” substitute “form”;
(b) for “subsections (4) and (5)” substitute “subsection (5)”.
5 In the heading of section 43, after “work” insert “: opting-out notices”.
6 After section 43 (in Part 4) insert—
“43ZA Contractual requirements relating to working additional hours on Sundays: objection notices
(1) Where a shop worker gives to his or her employer an objection notice, any agreement entered into between the shop worker and the employer becomes unenforceable to the extent that—
(a) it requires the shop worker to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday after the end of the relevant period, or
(b) it requires the employer to provide the shop worker with shop work for additional hours on Sunday after the end of that period.
(2) The “relevant period” is—
(a) in the case of a shop worker who is or may be required to do shop work in or about a large shop, the period of one month beginning with the day on which the objection notice is given;
(b) in any other case, the period of three months beginning with that day.
This subsection is subject to section 41D(3).
(3) A shop worker who has given an objection notice may revoke the notice by giving a further written notice to the employer.
(4) Where—
(a) a shop worker gives to the employer a notice under subsection (3), and
(b) after giving the notice the shop worker expressly agrees with the employer to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday (whether on Sundays generally or on a particular Sunday),
the contract of employment between the shop worker and the employer is to be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.
(5) The reference in subsection (1) to any agreement—
(a) includes the contract of employment under which the shop worker is employed immediately before giving the objection notice;
(b) includes an agreement of a kind mentioned in subsection (4), or a contract of employment as taken to be varied under that subsection, only if an objection notice is given in relation to the working of additional hours under that agreement or contract as varied.
43ZB Interpretation
(1) In this Part—
“additional hours” has the meaning given in section 41A(2);
“large shop” means a shop which has a relevant floor area exceeding 280 square metres;
“objection notice” has the meaning given in section 41A(2);
“regulations” means regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) In the definition of “large shop” in subsection (1)—
(a) “shop” means any premises where there is carried on a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale of goods;
(b) “relevant floor area” means the internal floor area of so much of the large shop in question as consists of or is comprised in a building.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), any part of the shop which is not used for the serving of customers in connection with the sale or display of goods is to be disregarded.
(4) The references in subsections (2) and (3) to the sale of goods does not include—
(a) the sale of meals, refreshments or alcohol (within the meaning of the Licensing Act 2003) for consumption on the premises on which they are sold, or
(b) the sale of meals or refreshments prepared to order for immediate consumption off those premises.”
7 After section 45 insert—
“45ZA Sunday working for shop workers: additional hours
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a shop worker has given an objection notice to his or her employer and the notice has not been withdrawn.
(2) The shop worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the employer done on the ground that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to anything done on the ground that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the relevant period.
(4) A shop worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his or her employer on the ground that the shop worker gave (or proposed to give) an objection notice to the employer.
(5) Subsections (2) and (4) do not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal (within the meaning of Part 10).
(6) For the purposes of this section, a shop worker who does not do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment by—
(a) a failure to pay remuneration in respect of doing shop work for additional hours on Sunday which the shop worker has not done, or
(7) Subsections (8) and (9) apply where—
(a) an employer offers to pay a sum specified in the offer to a shop worker if he or she agrees to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday, and
(b) the shop worker—
(i) has given an objection notice to the employer that has not been withdrawn, or
(ii) is not obliged under a contract of employment to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday.
(8) A shop worker to whom the offer is not made is not to be regarded for the purposes of this section as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure—
(a) to make the offer to the shop worker, or
(b) to pay the shop worker the sum specified in the offer.
(9) A shop worker who does not accept the offer is not to be regarded for the purposes of this section as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to pay the shop worker the sum specified in the offer.
(10) In this section—
“additional hours” and “objection notice” have the meanings given by section 41A(2);
“relevant period” means the period determined by section 43ZA(2) (but subject to section 41D(3)).”
8 After section 101 insert—
“101ZA Shop workers who refuse to work additional hours on Sunday
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a shop worker has given an objection notice that has not been withdrawn and he or she is dismissed.
(2) The shop worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or the principal reason) for the dismissal is that he or she refused, or proposed to refuse, to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the relevant period.
(4) A shop worker who is dismissed is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is that the worker gave (or proposed to give) an objection notice to the employer.
(5) In this section—
“additional hours” and “objection notice” have the meanings given by section 41A(2);
“relevant period” means the period determined by section 43ZA(2) (but subject to section 41D(3)).”
9 In section 236 (orders and regulations), in subsection (3) after “27B,” insert “41A that include provision under subsection (4)(c) of that section,”.
Employment Act 2002
10 In section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 (failure to give statement of employment particulars etc)—
(a) in subsection (2)(b), after “change)” insert “or under section 41B or 41C of that Act (duty to give a written statement in relation to rights not to work on Sunday)”;
(b) in subsection (3)(b), after “1996” insert “or under section 41B or 41C of that Act”.”
This new Schedule contains amendments to employment legislation. The amendments: (a) shorten the notice period for opting out of Sunday work in the case of shop workers at large shops, (b) confer a new right to object to working additional hours on Sunday, (c) require employers to give statements explaining those rights, (d) confer protections against detriment and unfair dismissal for refusing to work additional hours on Sunday, and (e) provide for fines in tribunal proceedings if there is a failure to give explanatory statements.
Amendment (a) to new schedule 1, after paragraph 4(4)(b) insert—
“(c) in the words after paragraph (b), omit “shop worker or””.
This is a technical amendment of NS1 which removes a further reference to a shop worker from section 42 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as that section is to apply only to betting workers as a consequence of other amendments made by this New Schedule).
Amendment (b) to new schedule 1, in new section 43ZB(4)(a), after “2003” insert
“or, in relation to Scotland, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 16)”.
This is a technical amendment that provides for a definition of “alcohol” in relation to Scotland by reference to the relevant legislation of the Scottish Parliament.
Government amendments 76 and 77.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Sir David. It is wonderful to hear Government Members welcoming me so warmly back to my feet this afternoon. We made early inroads into the topic of Sunday trading. I pointed out the Government’s failure to publish an impact assessment before we got to this stage. It is not the first time in our proceedings that we have been missing important information before discussing amendments or clauses. We are operating without some of the facts, which is regrettable on top of the delays that I referred to before lunch. Many Members were unaware that Sunday trading would be before us. It was first announced on Second Reading that it would be a part of the Bill.
What a way to proceed. We have to wonder what is behind a very late and fundamental change to the Bill. It is the most controversial part of the legislation. It has far-reaching consequences for the business practices and livelihoods of thousands of shopkeepers and their staff, the staff of large retailers, families, communities and faith groups across the country. I spoke on Tuesday about the suspicious neutering of the pub code, as Lord Mendelsohn described the consultation that the Government published on the code.
The way in which the Government have attempted to change Sunday trading is certainly suspicious, but it goes way beyond neutering when describing the impact on smaller retailers, shopkeepers and their families. I suspect that the Churches and others who want to keep Sunday special would say that abandoning the Sunday trading compromise agreed 22 years ago amounts to an all-out assault that goes way beyond the term “neutering”.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. The Churches are very vocal in their campaign to keep Sunday special, but is he aware that a huge number of people of no faith also want to keep Sunday special? They need to be highlighted as much as those who for religious reasons wish to keep the day special.
Bill Esterson
I completely agree. The matter concerns not only people of faith, but everybody in this country. It is important to have one day a week when the pace of life is less hectic so that we are not on a 24/7 treadmill of consumerism and taking every opportunity to buy goods in our high streets and shopping centres. I am sure the Minister will comment that online shopping is available 24/7, but that is another matter that I will return to later.
The Government’s consultation on changes to Sunday trading was held for just two weeks in the summer holiday, although they took five months to publish the results. In the publication, for some reason the Government omitted to tell us how many people were in favour of the changes and how many were not. They told us only that lots of big businesses were, perhaps unsurprisingly, in favour. We were not told the results of all 7,000 responses.
It is important to appreciate the scale of the impact of the proposals. Any regulatory changes to operations in the retail sector will have an enormous knock-on effect on the economy as a whole. A September 2015 report by Oxford Economics found that the sector accounts for 9.2% of all jobs in the UK—more than 3 million people—and that 50,000 small local convenience stores employ 386,000 people. Any regulatory changes will have significant ramifications for the sector as a whole, in particular for convenience stores, small shops, their staff and the local communities they serve.
For a significant proposal that generates such keen debate, a responsible approach would have been to undertake a robust economic analysis, a transparent consultation and honest engagement with interested parties, and to decide upon a dedicated legislative mechanism to deliver reforms on that basis. Sadly, that is not what the Government have done. Extended Sunday trading hours would not produce any more sales and would simply spread existing sales from small stores to large stores and over more hours. Unless the Government are advocating more consumer credit and an increase in the level of personal unsecured debt, how could it be otherwise?
The Oxford Economics study drew two clear conclusions: first, there would be no overall increase in retail spending; and secondly, there would be significant displacement of spending from smaller to larger retailers, damaging those 50,000 convenience stores. The report states that
“devolving Sunday trading decisions to local authorities, and the subsequent liberalisation that can be expected to occur, will have only a small impact on the retail sector as a whole, whether positive or negative. However, the displacement of spending from small to large stores may have an impact on employment patterns within the sector that can be expected to manifest itself in job losses at a local level.”
There would be not only a change in spending, but an impact on employment, so there is no overall economic benefit to offset the significant harm caused by the proposal to employment, small business owners, and shop workers and their families.
I turn to the process that we went through to get to this point in Committee. No amendments, impact assessment or economic analysis were published and still no family test has been released either.
Catherine McKinnell
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I must say that I am a little baffled about the evidence on which the Government based their decision to change Sunday training hours and where they believe the economic benefit will come from. From any studies or information from the Government that my hon. Friend has read, does he know where the economic benefit will fall?
Bill Esterson
It is a very good question. Without an impact assessment, we are in the dark about where the evidence for the changes comes from and what the evidence is for the economic effect. As I mentioned before, the elements of the consultation that the Government have published mention only the responses from, we presume, a relatively small number of very large businesses, which favour the changes overall, and make no reference to the numbers of people who favoured or opposed the changes. We have limited evidence about what has happened. I have tried to look for some evidence and there are some studies, which I shall come to later.
Parliament should have the opportunity to digest and scrutinise the evidence, put forward by the Government. It is simply unacceptable that the new clauses were dropped in with no notice on Second Reading. The answers to parliamentary questions asking where the impact assessment is were published on Monday. The Minister said that an impact assessment had been carried out and that it would be published, but she did not say when. Perhaps either she or the Minister for Housing and Planning, who has moved the new clause, can tell us later when that impact assessment will be published, although it is bizarre that we are debating the Bill without sight of the results of the impact assessment.
The Minister mentioned Knightsbridge and I mentioned the Harrods clause earlier. There are two high streets that benefit, Oxford Street and Knightsbridge, if they can be described as high streets. They are represented by the New West End Company. However, they are very different from almost any other high street or main shopping area of a high street anywhere else in the country. To base a policy on what happens in Knightsbridge or in Oxford Street really is a very strange way to proceed.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, who is not the Minister dealing with this new clause, is chuntering from a sedentary position that the provision is entirely discretionary. Perhaps she does not understand the nature of market forces.
Bill Esterson
The Minister certainly claims that she understands market forces; she does so often.
I have mentioned before that this could be described as a domino clause, because those local authorities that do not implement it may well be influenced by what goes on in neighbouring authorities that do implement it. I guess that is a form of market forces. Perhaps it is the forces between neighbouring local authorities around the country that will, in the end, force everybody to comply and to relax Sunday trading rules for all.
Sadly, the Government’s consultation is an advocacy document for devolving Sunday trading rules. The Government have ducked and dived, parried all the evidence that has been presented to them, and blindly focused on what they want to hear, as they have only quoted selectively from the consultation. We can assume that that is the case, because of the 7,000 responses to the consultation received by the Government, they have focused their analysis on just three groups: large and medium-sized businesses; business representative bodies; and local councils. In other words, they are focusing on the people who stand to gain the most.
Using a very small sample from the 7,000 responses, the Government found what was undoubtedly for them the palatable figure of 76% of respondents supporting devolution in order to make their case, but there was only 76% support among those three groups. The Government have ignored, and not published, the figures that show the concern among small business owners, high streets, shop workers, families and family groups, and, indeed, faith groups. The people who will be affected the most by the change are being completely ignored in this process.
Since the beginning of the year, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has published five consultation responses, all of which have included a breakdown of respondents and analysis of their position, and how many responses in total are in favour of a proposal and how many responses in total are opposed to it. That has happened on a range of issues. However, that has not occurred for the consultation on Sunday trading reform. Why is that? It is because the Government know that their proposals are not backed by the majority of the public and the majority of stakeholders.
In making their case for Sunday trading reform, the Government have also used evidence that is laughably out of date to support their case. I will focus on three key pieces of evidence that the Government have used to make their case and to deal with the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North asked earlier, in order to outline why the Government are misguided.
The first is Swedish sales data. The BIS press release announcing the Government response to the consultation of last August proudly stated that a change in Sunday trading resulted in a 5% increase in turnover in Sweden. In order to get that figure and find that 5% increase, the Government went all the way back to Sweden in 1972, when ABBA were formed. I am sure that somebody will be able to think of a suitable ABBA song to describe the appropriateness or otherwise of the way the Government have used that data. [Interruption.] I feel an intervention is coming.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
Dancing Queen?
Bill Esterson
Speak for yourself. The Government did that to find a 5% increase in turnover from changes to Sunday trading laws.
Sweden in 1972 is clearly not the same as the United Kingdom in 2016. The Government also fail to mention the wider impact after Sunday trading reform in Sweden. For example, small stores were decimated, with their market share dropping from 70% to 19%. That is an almost complete collapse in the sector.
Catherine McKinnell
Another concern about the impact of the changes on small convenience stores might be at a tangent to the debate, but what occurred to me because of the situation in my local area is that post offices are increasingly being located in convenience stores precisely because they are struggling to survive independently on the high street. By putting convenience stores at greater risk, we are also putting our post office services at greater risk. The Minister should bear that in mind.
Bill Esterson
So the Minister should. My hon. Friend must have been reading my speech over my shoulder—which would have been a remarkable achievement given that I am a little bit taller than she is—because I was about to say that the National Federation of SubPostmasters has also expressed its concerns about the impact of Sunday trading reforms on post offices.
We have a network of only 11,500 post offices because most of them are integrated into local convenience stores—the point that my hon. Friend was making—and those host businesses in effect subsidise the post office. A number of convenience stores and the National Federation of SubPostmasters have expressed concerns that as retail trade in their stores declines due to extended Sunday trading for large stores, those post offices will be put at risk.
Catherine McKinnell
To elaborate, I know from personal experience and local feedback that often Sundays out of hours are the only time at which many people use the convenience stores and so become aware that the post office services are available there. The Sunday footfall is important for those convenience stores.
Bill Esterson
That is right. The great British compromise that we have at the moment gives small retailers a one-day-a-week competitive advantage—it is a slight one, because they are not open for the whole day—and helps, as my hon. Friend said, to raise awareness that there is a post office in those convenience stores. Without that one-day advantage, there is bound to be less awareness of the post offices, which will have an impact on their ability to be successful.
I turn to online shopping. Extending Sunday trading hours will not help high streets to compete with online retailers. For some reason, the Government believe, as the Minister told us, that people shop online because of variations in trading hours on Sundays. There is no link in either consumers’ minds or behaviour between early morning and evening restrictions in Sunday opening hours and their use of the internet for shopping. That is supported by polling completed by Populus of 2,008 members of the public. It asked respondents whether they had shopped online during the Christmas period, with two thirds stating they had. Those respondents were asked to say why they had chosen to shop online and, unsurprisingly, none of them referenced Sunday trading hours as a reason.
Ministers continue to remind us that they are not changing the Sunday trading laws but just devolving the decision to local authorities or, as the Minister said, to local leaders. It is not the whole community, but one person in each local authority.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
Does the hon. Gentleman not trust his leaders—does he not trust his councillors?
Bill Esterson
We will come back to that point.
It is naive to believe that the devolution of the powers will not result in a blanket extension of Sunday trading hours across the country because of the domino effect I mentioned. Polling of local authority chief executives has shown that 45% of local authorities are heavily influenced by the action of neighbouring authorities’ policies and procedures. We are therefore likely to see far longer Sunday opening hours in the majority of areas within a short period, because there will be a domino effect across the country as one council follows the other.
We also know from the planning system that large businesses have slick procedures for lobbying local authorities to secure favourable local policies and new developments. That has resulted in the widespread development of out-of-town stores, which have driven footfall away from traditional town centres and harmed high streets. It will no doubt be the same for Sunday trading policies. The Minister often says that he is serious about supporting high streets; I think he is supposed to be the Minister responsible for high streets.
Bill Esterson
No, that is the responsibility of one of the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point in questioning whether the Minister is responsible for high streets. He shakes his head to show that he is not, but it would be interesting to know whether he has spoken to the Minister responsible for the issue about the impact it will have on high streets.
Bill Esterson
The CLG Ministers might not have consulted the rest of the country, published the impact assessment or told us how much opposition there is to the measure, but we can probably assume that they talk within their team.
Brandon Lewis
I will put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. He and the hon. Lady may be referring back to how the previous Labour Government used to work, but in this Conservative Government we do talk together. I used to be the Minister responsible for high streets. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), is now that Minister. Not only have I consulted him, but he has consulted widely, including members of the Future High Streets Forum, who, like him, are positive about this measure for the future of our high streets.
Bill Esterson
Unfortunately, the Minister’s team has not published the results of that wider consultation, which is one point I have been making. If they are serious about giving local people a choice and this not being the decision of just one local leader, why have they not made provisions for local referendums, publication of local impact assessments or extensions to specific areas in their new clause? The current proposal does not provide a real choice for local people—a point supported by Gary Morris, a director at property consultancy WYG, who told Property Week:
“I believe there will be pressure from the out-of-town retailers and supermarkets to open longer. And that won’t necessarily be because they want to; it’ll be because they feel they need to just compete”—
as with local authorities. He goes on:
“I can envisage a scenario whereby out-of-town operators might look for regional disparities to make a case that they should be allowed to open to compete with centres further away with longer hours”.
We know from polling local authority chief executives that that is true: 52% have indicated that they would use the devolution of Sunday trading powers to support out-of-town retailers and supermarkets, not town centres and high streets. Such a change to Sunday trading can only displace trade and harm high streets. The Minister has chosen to ignore those important facts.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. I must go back to his reference to Sweden, ABBA and 1972 and put on the record my concern that decision making will become all about money, money, money rather than the wider community concerns on which all planning decisions should be made.
Bill Esterson
I thank my hon. Friend, because that was worth the half-hour wait. That was very good and she is quite right, of course. I will not try to improve on it.
Bill Esterson
And my hon. Friend makes the point brilliantly. It is a very serious point. Of course, the Government would say that what might be called trivial points about local decision making—I do not think that they are at all trivial—mean nothing because, at the end of the day, consumers want change and shop workers want the opportunity to work more hours and earn more money. In fact, the Minister did say that.
Again, the Government are ignoring the facts. In September, research from Populus showed overwhelming support for the existing Sunday trading compromise, with two thirds of the public supporting the existing measures. The majority—61%—agree that Sunday is different from the rest of the week as it enables shared time with family and friends. Only one in eight people thinks that there is not enough time to shop under the current Sunday trading hours. One in eight. We are changing the law to ignore the views of seven in eight. That is remarkable.
Sunday trading laws work for the country. They are an important part of the fabric of our society. Sunday is a communal day of rest when people of faith or no faith can spend time with their family and friends and recharge their batteries for the rest of the week. The same is true for shop workers, the most important stakeholders in this debate whose views are completely ignored by the Government.
Some 91% of shop workers do not want a change in Sunday trading laws. They support the current compromise that allows them to spend a couple of hours a week with their families. Let us not underestimate how important that is for shop workers who already work more weekend hours. Some 63% of people employed in retail are already working overtime, compared with an average of 57% across all sectors. Barely half the people who work in retail report being satisfied with the amount of leisure time they have, suggesting that many experience a squeeze on the time they have available to spend with their partners and children.
Shop workers already face significant pressure to work on Sundays. They currently have the right to opt out of Sunday working if they give written notice to their employer with a notice period of three months. As the Minister told us, the Government have proposed to enhance the opt-out for shop workers in larger stores by reducing the notice period to one month. Staff will be able to opt out of working hours that are additional to their normal Sunday hours, which are averaged over a 12-week period. There is simply no evidence that the existing opt-out rules help to protect Sundays for shop workers, so it is clearly questionable for the Government to suggest that extending the opt-out rules will alleviate pressure on staff in the sector, if and when the legislation is passed and implemented.
The fact is that many shop workers are unable to use the Sunday working opt-out because of pressure from management. To ensure that they can cover all shifts whenever necessary, retail managers request seven-day flexibility from staff. Those who apply for a job invariably have to complete an availability schedule as part of their application. If they do not include availability on Sundays, they are not offered an interview. Employment contracts in retail then stipulate that staff have to give availability across the days and times that they have indicated. If staff ask to opt out of Sunday working, they can be told that they are not fulfilling their contract.
One USDAW member described it as follows:
“Sundays used to be a day of rest. Now my contract says 5 over 7”—
that is, they have to work for any five days in a week. Another said:
“My employer now only takes on part-timers willing to work every weekend.”
In fact, an independent survey in September 2015 of more than 10,000 USDAW members working in large stores found that 58% are already under pressure to work on Sundays when they do not want to. One member responding to the survey said:
“I’ve been told I’d be letting the team down if I don’t work extra on a Sunday. If we refuse a request to work extra then they are extremely unlikely to honour a request for an appointment or for time off”.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir David. I am not sure how many members of the Committee have done shop work, but I certainly remember my two years as a Saturday girl in British Home Stores. That was 30 years ago. Those were the days when there was no Sunday opening, but in the run-up to Christmas there were four Sundays. As a young woman living in recession-hit Coventry in the early ’80s, I certainly relished the chance to work on a Sunday—but that was also because I was getting double pay on a Sunday. On the rare occasions when I worked on a bank holiday, I was getting treble pay.
I think it is a real shame that over the past 30 years the retail industry has gradually eroded workers’ rights and pay and conditions, and is relying ever more on a temporary and part-time workforce, partly so as not to pay the employers’ national insurance contributions. Employers would find that people would be more likely to volunteer to work on Sundays if the pay and incentives were correct.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and reminding us that there was a time when workers received overtime payments for unsocial hours. Bank holidays were triple time. I have similar experience, so long ago that I cannot quite remember, but I know that overtime payments were as my hon. Friend described, and there has been a fundamental change. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West will deal with some of those points a bit later.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It is, again, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Is there not a flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument? If he is suggesting that currently 60% of shop workers complain about working on Sundays, a significant number are already working on Sundays.
Bill Esterson
I have not answered the first intervention yet; I am not entirely sure how to, as it was a statement of the obvious that staff work on Saturdays—and, yes, staff work on Sundays. That is certainly true, but people want the chance to have at least some time on a Sunday. That is the argument, and that is the point being made by shop workers who feel under huge pressure already. That pressure can only grow if the number of hours is increased by the larger stores.
Jo Churchill
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I want to make two points: I started my career in retail, not in the illustrious universities that many here went to. I was manager of the year for the retail group that I started with and then manager of the year for a company called the Body Shop International, in the mid-’80s. That gave me many years of working seven days a week.
People have two choices when they are in business: to make profit, and sustain, or not to make profit. The reason why people do not get paid triple or even double time is that society has changed and businesses could no longer afford to give choice on the high street if they chose to do that. We are beyond the time when that was possible. If the hon. Gentleman truly wants to do what he has argued—sustain the high street—payment must work across the seven days of a week. Fundamentally his argument is flawed, on the basis that if one predicates—
Bill Esterson
I do not think any of us were suggesting going back to the 1980s and the deindustrialisation and destruction of industry that happened under the Thatcher Government. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] In the current environment, we have an agreed compromise. That is what the Opposition are trying to protect. It is an agreed compromise between small businesses, staff, families and faith groups. It has widespread public support and the only people who seem to want to change it are those with interests in large businesses and those who feel they will have no choice other than to support it because of the domino effect around the country.
USDAW’s research has found that, even in workplaces with trade union reps to support members, many staff are pressured into not using the Sunday opt-out. The argument being made by Opposition Members, trade unions and shop workers is that it is about a level playing field and fairness. The survey by USDAW found that 28% of those who tried to opt out of Sunday working in large stores had been unable to. In small stores, the figure rose to 38%, reflecting the longer opening hours and greater pressure to work. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds was referring to smaller stores. That is a difficult reality for the staff as well as for the business owners. The point is to try to balance those two as much as possible.
Overall, for every two staff who are able to use the opt-out, only one is successful. In the vast majority of retail workplaces where there is no union organisation or support, the proportion of staff unable to use the opt-out will be far higher. There is immense pressure on retail staff to work on Sundays. Even in workplaces with trade union reps to support members, over a third of those who try to opt out of Sunday working are unable to, and even more are prevented by pressure from even trying to use the opt-out. Longer Sundays will make the pressure worse, and the changes in the opt-out will not prevent staff from being pressured into working more on Sundays, making them lose even more precious family time.
John Hannett, the general secretary of USDAW, says:
“Many shopworkers find they are unable to use the current Sunday opt-out due to pressure from management and the possible loss of working hours, which most cannot afford. For these reasons the Government’s so-called protections will mean little or nothing in practice.”
The protections for shop workers are not enough to prevent businesses from abusing their dominance to force shop workers to work for longer, and that will be exacerbated under the Government’s proposals.
Church and faith groups are strongly opposed to the Government’s reforms and are equally frustrated by the Government’s consultation process. The Bishop of St Albans, the right reverend Dr Alan Smith, recently said:
“The Government response makes no compelling case for improved economic or social benefits and will do nothing to dissuade those who are concerned that the policy will damage family and community life…Most fundamentally the consultation response neglects to recognise the social value of a shared day for community and family life. In a world of increasing commodification, the space for shared time and activities, central to human flourishing is becoming ever more rare. Increased Sunday opening hours will only exacerbate this trend. I hope the Government will reflect and think again.”
I am sure the strength of feeling from church and faith groups will be replicated in the other place, where the Enterprise Bill started without the Sunday trading proposals included. It was the Enterprise Bill. It was not the Enterprise and Sunday Trading Bill, which it will become after the amendment goes through. The Lords did not have time to discuss Sunday trading or to examine it in detail in Grand Committee or on Report. This is the first time it is being debated. It is important to remember that this is a Lords Bill and the first time we are debating this matter is in the Commons.
The Government have not made a credible case, economically or socially, for a change to Sunday trading laws, so much so that the Government consultation process has used outdated and misrepresented data to form a credible case for reform. Consumers, small businesses, large businesses, high streets, shop workers and faith groups support the compromise we have now. A change is not wanted or needed. The Government’s own Back Benchers are divided on the issue and, as such, the Government have chosen to award the Bill the smallest amount of time for scrutiny in Parliament. The Government are running scared from debating Sunday trading, which is why it was left so late. They are hiding behind the false devolution argument to deliver complete liberalisation by the back door and pursue their ideological ambitions over workable public policy. I hope that on Report, Government Members can persuade Ministers that it is a mistake and that they should rethink, go back to the drawing board and withdraw the proposal.
Catherine McKinnell
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am keen to add my voice to those who share deep concern about both the substance of the changes and how they have been introduced by the Government. I do so on behalf of shop workers in my constituency and across the country who are interested in the issue, small businesses and convenience stores in my constituency and across the country and the large number of people who, whether due to religious faith or otherwise, feel strongly that Sunday should be kept as a special day for faith, community or cultural reasons.
It is important to put it on record that although I speak on behalf of a wide range of people, I have a personal interest in the issue in that my husband works in retail, and the changes will have a direct impact on my family. I wanted to declare that interest. It is clearly not financial, but although I am not speaking about my personal experience, it informs my understanding of the impact that the changes will have, particularly on shop workers and communities throughout the country. I hope that it helps inform the debate as well.
There is a big question remaining in my mind, having heard the Minister introduce the proposals and my hon. Friend the shadow Minister make a strong speech setting out clearly why the Government have not made the case for the changes. I genuinely cannot understand why the Government are introducing them, why they are necessary and why they think that they are a good idea. We have a more than 20-year-old compromise on the issue, and the overwhelming consensus is that the public support the current arrangements. A recent Populus poll showed that 67% of the public, or two thirds, support the current rules about trading hours on a Sunday. Another poll by Ipsos MORI back in 2012 found that more than half the public actively oppose any extension to the Sunday trading hours. There is a clear level of consensus about the trading hours that the balance is about right.
The Government argue that this is about localism and giving local areas the opportunity to grow, create more jobs, be more competitive in an increasingly online world and reinvigorate high streets, but the truth is that without any proper consultation or results from that consultation published by the Government, the evidence available to us on whether those claims and intentions stack up shows that it will achieve quite the opposite.
Even large retailers, which the Government claim will benefit from the changes, share many of the concerns. Asda, for example, has admitted that it hopes that the changes to the Sunday trading hours will be dropped altogether, because it has concerns about the workability of the proposals. Other retailers worry whether there will be enough of an uplift in demand to justify the extra costs incurred through longer opening hours. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister clearly outlined the question about the cost-benefit analysis of extending hours for the same amount of trade.
Perhaps the biggest worry for large retailers is how they will cope with the complexity of hundreds of different rules for different stores throughout the country about when and for how long they can open on Sundays. One big supermarket group recently told The Times:
“This is all becoming more and more opaque. The government says it is trying to cut red tape but now it wants to give local councils this subjective ability to pick and choose which areas can have extended trading, and who will benefit from that. It all seems a bit of a shambles…and the data the government is using to support its argument is from 2006 before the recession.”
Surely the new clause flies in the face of the Government’s deregulation agenda, which we considered earlier. Will the Minister clarify whether the Government have undertaken an impact assessment, and whether they will publish it, on how the new clause will affect the Government’s business impact target, which requires Ministers to consider the economic impact of statutory provisions on businesses?
The Government claimed that this change will boost high street footfall, but what of the economic impact on businesses that will have to comply with tens, if not hundreds, of different regulations and Sunday trading restrictions? Far from cutting red tape for businesses, devolving powers over Sunday trading will do the opposite. Businesses large and small agree, and have expressed their concerns about that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central said, the best and only test we have of the effect of extending Sunday trading hours is their temporary relaxation during the 2012 Olympics. He talked about the difference between the retail sales in July, August and September, when that temporary relaxation was in force, and those of the earlier months of May and June, when the restrictions remained in place. ONS figures show that the level across all of those months was the same as the previous year, which calls into question the claim that extending Sunday trading hours will bring an increase in trade. It will, however, increase retailers’ costs.
Although the case for extending Sunday trading hours based on the economic impact on businesses is far from certain, it will have a big impact on small shops and convenience stores. The London Olympics give a useful indication of the impact that a permanent relaxation might have on small businesses and convenience stores, which play a vital role in all of our communities not only by providing post office services, which we have discussed, but by being available as a convenience—hence the name.
My hon. Friend referred to the Oxford Economics study that found that, as a result of the temporary relaxation during the Olympics, convenience stores within 1 mile of a supermarket lost £1,300, or 3.4% of their weekly sales. That evidence is very different to anything the Government have cited in support of the changes. I would be surprised if hon. Members on both sides of the House are willing to support their wish and hope—I have a dream, to go back to the Abba bingo—over the clear evidence from past experience that shows that the change will damage convenience stores and could cost the sector up to 6,500 jobs, far outweighing any projections for the jobs that may be created in the larger stores.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend made an interesting point earlier—I have been reflecting on it during her speech—about the risks to the retail sector, and in particular to the large stores. The sector does not have a unanimous opinion on this issue. A risk that has been raised is that if one store opens, causing every other store to feel that they have to do the same, they will end up becoming less profitable because there will not be enough footfall. Perhaps people in Wakefield do not want to go shopping or whatever else at 9 o’clock on a Sunday morning. They might be having a well-deserved lie-in or taking the dog for a walk.
Catherine McKinnell
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point. [Interruption.] The Minister from a sedentary position keeps repeating the mantra that it is not obligatory. Is that what she is saying?
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister says that it is not compulsory, but she seems to misunderstand completely the nature of market forces and retail competition.
Catherine McKinnell
As my hon. Friend says, perhaps the Minister has never played dominoes.
Catherine McKinnell
I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, who has already given us a lecture on market forces. That would be very helpful.
Jo Churchill
Yes, I suppose it is about market forces again. Tesco convenience stores in places where there has been a lack of demand have dropped their hours back down, which indicates that, actually, it is not compulsory; it is up to the business to ensure that it optimises—[Hon. Members: “So why change the system?”] So larger ones have the choice. It is about choice.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate what the hon. Lady says, but the Government have a role and a responsibility to balance the interests of communities, the business community, local authorities and local planning decisions, which is where the debate was had 22 years ago when a compromise was struck. That compromise has worked and is sensible, and she has pointed out that some retailers have decided to drop back their hours where there is not enough demand. The difficulty with fully liberalising the retail legislation in this way is that it removes all of the current compromise that allows for that flexibility. Indeed, she makes the point that the current laws are working, and the Government have not submitted any evidence to justify why they need to change the system.
The Federation of Small Businesses and the Association of Convenience Stores, both significant voices for small businesses, are opposed to the measures. Small businesses are the backbone of the UK’s economy, making up 99% of the 5.2 million businesses in the country and employing more than 14 million people. Their voice should be heard, and the restrictions on Sunday trading play a vital role in supporting and sustaining our small businesses. Frankly, I am shocked that the Government seem to dismiss the concerns of small businesses so out of hand when they claim to be champions of small business, but we know that is not the case, and this proves it.
My final point is on the tens of thousands of people who work in the retail sector on Sundays for large retailers and who take comfort from the current arrangements, which enable them to go out to earn a living while still getting some time off with their family on a Sunday and retaining a semblance of a work-life balance. Surely the Minister can recognise that the new clause merely risks heaping more pressure on low-paid retail workers, for whom the Sunday restrictions are considered a fundamental right and protection. It is telling that his contribution to the debate so far was entirely focused on those workers being able to enforce those rights. A measure proposed by the Government that is focused entirely on how individuals and workers can enforce those rights highlights the issue and the difficult situation in which the Government are deliberately putting those workers.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Would it be useful if the Minister clarified that point? We know the measure is controversial, and we will be returning to it on Report; lots of Government Members are also not happy with it. Even if the measures do not go ahead, will the enhanced workers’ rights be delivered by the Government because they think it is the right thing to do?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it would be useful to hear from the Minister that, even if the Sunday trading laws do not go ahead—the Minister should take on board the deep concerns on both sides of the House about the Sunday trading restrictions—he will still commit to the additional rights for workers to enforce the Sunday trading restrictions in their workplace.
Does the Minister recognise the concerns raised about work-life balance? He should address that issue, because it is a well-known aspiration of the Prime Minister to make the UK the most family-friendly country in Europe. Indeed, in 2014 he announced, to much fanfare, his family test, which says that
“every single domestic policy that government comes up with will be examined for its impact on the family… The reality is that in the past the family just hasn’t been central to the way government thinks. So you get a whole load of policy decisions which take no account of the family and sometimes make…things worse.”
I could not agree more. This has just come into my head, and I cannot resist sharing it with the Committee: in the light of the exchange at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, does your mother know?
Given new clause 21, under which thousands of retail staff face working longer hours on Sunday—a day when their children are not at school and that is often reserved for family and friends—what will happen to the Prime Minister’s aspiration? Has the family test been carried out and, if so, why has the result not been published?
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir David. This debate saddens and disappoints me. I remember when the previous Government came to the Commons to seek support for extending the opening hours during the Olympics. I, along with others, listened in good faith to the arguments presented by the Government. Like Members of all parties, I was concerned that giving the green light to the extension would be the start of something much wider in England and Wales.
I am also saddened by the fact that in April 2015 USDAW received a letter written on behalf of David Cameron stating that the Government had no plans to relax the current legislation. The letter was written on behalf of the Prime Minister in 2015, and we have the same Prime Minister in 2016. However, a review was subsequently announced in June 2015 after the election. On two occasions, senior figures in our political system—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister—have seemed to say one thing to get the support of the House and the electorate, and then down the road it seems they have changed their view. Perhaps that was already their plan. As my hon. Friends have already outlined, we have what it is fair to call a great British compromise. It is not the case—
Caroline Flint
I will come on to Scotland shortly. I am proud of being English; in England we do not have to do everything that they do in Scotland, and vice versa. That is the beauty of devolution. Sometimes we are right and they are wrong—and, to be fair to Scottish National party Committee members, sometimes Scotland gets it right and we get it wrong. I pay tribute to the fact that the Scots chose to go ahead with the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces before England did. As public health Minister, I went to Scotland to learn from its success. It was a good example of seeing where things could be done differently and how we could learn from them.
I think England is very different from Scotland when it comes to the retail sector. No offence, but England is a much bigger country with a much larger population. The density of our cities and their proximity to each other—putting aside Glasgow and Edinburgh—means that the changes the Government are suggesting could end up, as my hon. Friends have outlined, having a mushrooming effect as one city makes one decision under one local authority and that leads to pressure on others. I worry about that.
According to a survey by USDAW of more than 10,000 shop workers, the vast majority work at least some Sundays. Most work every Saturday. Perhaps there is a reason why the Government want the changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central made an interesting point: he said we need to tighten up the protection of workers’ rights in this area because 35% of staff in large stores would like to work fewer hours on a Sunday. That indicates, along with other evidence, that undue pressure is already being put on workers in retail today. Regardless of whether our Parliament decides to go ahead with the Government’s proposals, I hope that the Government will extend the protections under the existing arrangements to retail workers who work on Sundays.
I happen to think that not every day of the week should be the same. It is good to have something a bit different and a bit British. I am old enough to remember the halcyon days when we had half-day closing on a Wednesday. My grandparents were publicans. My parents worked in pubs, and I have worked in pubs. I remember when we opened at 12 o’clock on a Sunday and closed at 2 o’clock, then did not open until 7 o’clock that night. There are some issues around the opening hours of that sector as well.
I also remember when banks were first allowed to open on a Saturday. In fact, it was on a new Saturday opening of the NatWest branch in Richmond when my husband and I happened to go in with our children to get some pocket money for them and we managed to foil an armed bank robbery. Having done that and the robber having been apprehended by the police, my husband and I were put on alert that we might have to give evidence in court; on that particular Saturday, staff had been brought from another branch and had forgotten to put the cameras on inside the branch. As a result, there was no evidence, so my husband and I were the only persons who could put the armed robber in the bank and outside the bank at the relevant time.
There is often confusion about what the opening up of these arrangements means for staff. How ironic it is that all these years later, after all that extension of banks’ opening hours, we are now seeing bank closures. Throughout the villages in my constituency, I see banks closing from Monday to Friday, when consumers would like to see them open.
According to a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills:
“The current Sunday trading rules are restrictive, stifling business efficiency and competitiveness and inhibiting consumer choice and reducing the ability of our major cities to compete for international tourism.”
In the words of Victor Meldrew, “I don’t believe it!” I happen to have in my constituency the excellent Yorkshire Wildlife Park, which is one of the fastest growing tourist attractions in Yorkshire. You are very welcome to visit, Sir David, if you happen to be in south Yorkshire on a weekend.
Mary Creagh
I thank my right hon. Friend for enlivening our afternoon deliberations with her armed robbery-foiling story, which I have heard many times. I heartily recommend the full version; I am sure we can all adjourn to Strangers’ at the close of the Committee to hear the unexpurgated version. However, she neglected to mention the meerkats at the Yorkshire Wildlife Park, which is a gross injustice to that excellent tourist attraction.
Caroline Flint
I thank my hon. Friend for that added promotion of the park. May I return the favour by mentioning the excellent Yorkshire Sculpture Park in her constituency of Wakefield?
The BIS statement says that these measures will somehow improve international tourism, but do you know what? I want people to come to the Yorkshire Wildlife Park on a Sunday. I want them to go to the Yorkshire Sculpture Park on a Sunday. I want proper measures to support international tourism outside London and the south-east, and we can do that by ensuring we have good transport links, good support and promotion and marketing of those wonderful assets and jewels in our tourism crown. In a few months’ time, we will have the Tour de Yorkshire, which will come through my constituency and is a major event to raise money and create jobs. What is this shabby deal we are being offered? Nobody is asking for this.
Jo Churchill
I am just wondering: do these wonderful tourist attractions have any souvenir shops?
Caroline Flint
Yes. To be clear, we all acknowledge that there is provision for Sunday opening. In England and Wales, stores that are larger than 280 square metres are allowed to open for six continuous hours between the hours of 10 am and 6 pm. Small stores—those under 280 square metres—do not have any restrictions on Sunday opening.
Mary Creagh
In her enunciation of the highlights of Wakefield, my right hon. Friend unforgivably neglected to mention the Hepworth Wakefield gallery, which is open on Sundays. It has an excellent café/restaurant and a shop. Both the shop at the Hepworth and the shop at Yorkshire Sculpture Park are open on Sundays because they are classified as small shops.
Caroline Flint
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am happy to take other interventions on how we support the UK tourism industry and do not undermine it by further encouraging people to shop even longer in the major shops in our cities and towns. I really do not think we need that.
David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Caroline Flint
No. I am going to finish my point before I take another intervention. I do not think a change to Sunday hours is necessary, and there is no evidence for it. We certainly do not have the impact assessment with the evidence to support it. What is shabby about this whole debate is that none of this stuff was in the Bill on Second Reading. Nevertheless, Ministers spent an inordinate amount of time trying to explain what the proposal was all about and why it should go ahead. [Interruption.]
Catherine McKinnell
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. From a sedentary position, in response to the important point she makes about small shops and other businesses that can take advantage of the existing Sunday arrangements, the Minister asks why that should not be available for larger stores. Does she share my concern that the Government just do not get it?
Caroline Flint
I do not think that they get it. We already have a flexible system that gives ample time for people to shop on a Sunday if they so wish, but within a framework that tries to make Sunday different from every other day of the week. Further extension of Sunday trading will not only put huge pressure on people who are currently working in large stores, 35% of whom would like to work shorter hours than they currently are, but undermine the fabric of what a Sunday should be about and the opportunity for families to be together.
I am a vice chair of the all-party group on women and work. Earlier this week we were discussing the big problems of childcare—and that was just from Monday to Friday, let alone the impact of having to find more childcare support on a Sunday. In the UK there are already too many families, some of whom I know and have met, in which the parents are working shifts to cover their own childcare because they cannot afford to pay for it or get it at a time that suits them. I do not want to be part of adding to the problems of those families.
David Mackintosh
We have heard a lot about interesting tourist attractions. Do people work at them on a Sunday?
Caroline Flint
Honestly, with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is stupid. Nobody is not acknowledging the changes there have been in the working hours of the retail sector. In some cases, the arrangements make common sense, and compromise has happened. Nevertheless, to further extend the possibility of workers in the retail sector working ever-increasing hours from Monday to Sunday is a mistake. It is not just about the money; it is about how we see things and a way of life that is threatened by the Government’s proposals.
It concerns me that promises have been broken. It concerns me that we could see the domino effect, to which my colleagues have referred, whereby one city feels that it has to move in this direction and others follow suit. I hope that we would all agree that our high streets face major challenges in terms of internet shopping and how they can keep ahead. One of the biggest problems for the shops on my constituency’s high streets is that the landlords who own the properties that retailers rent are not keeping them up to standard, which has a massive effect on communities in the many villages and towns that I represent in Don Valley.
I also want to say—I was thinking about this during an earlier speech—that if we are to have longer retail hours on Sundays, what will the impact be on policing? How much more will the police have to deal with antisocial behaviour and crime in busy retail areas during opening hours? It happens too often and shop workers are often the victims. What impact will the change have on the amount of litter that accumulates during the longer opening hours? Has any thought been given to all the service areas that are so important to successful businesses and retail outlets? Will there be any knock-on effect on their responsibilities and duties?
I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. There is cross-party opposition to the proposals. If something is not broken, why try to fix it? I was going to say that we have a British compromise, but it is a very English compromise, and I am going to stand up for England—and Wales.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the last time in this Committee, Sir David. I appreciate that this is a hotly debated topic and that time is marching on, so I will be brief.
Our concern has always primarily focused on Scottish workers and, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley identified and as was mentioned before, we do Sunday trading differently in Scotland. The SNP welcomes the Government’s provision of additional employee protections in new schedule 1. Indeed, without the strong and principled action of the SNP, such protections may never have materialised. We welcome the Government’s withdrawal of their initial proposals, which has allowed for more debate and engagement between now and Report. On behalf of the SNP, I have had the opportunity to engage with a number of interested stakeholders, large supermarkets and retailers, smaller retailers and trade organisations, and I will continue to do so. We particularly look forward to the enhanced scrutiny on Report.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Lady mentioned trade associations, but not trade unions. There are 46,000 USDAW members in Scotland, so will she confirm that she will consult that union between now and Report?
Hannah Bardell
Yes, we have previously consulted USDAW and had significant discussions. I pay tribute to its work, and we will absolutely consult it again.
Brandon Lewis
We have had a long debate and some interesting contributions. It has been interesting to hear Opposition Members complain that the rules they put in place to protect workers are not working. That is one of the reasons why there is a package of options. I wonder whether they fully understand how the high street works, let alone whether they have actually fully read the new clause and schedule and understand how they knit together. The extra protections improve accessibility and are an integral part of the package. They would not be needed if we were not going forward. However, I appreciate Opposition Members’ recognition that the way things were done under Labour simply was not good enough.
In some instances, hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Sefton Central, were missing the point. We are looking at devolving power to local areas. Just to correct him, I do not know how the Labour party works but certainly in Conservative councils, I would not think we have many leaders who believe that they are the sole decision maker. They work on a democratic basis where all councillors have their say, but that might be why we also have Labour councils asking for this power. As well as Manchester and Nottingham, more than 150 council leaders are calling for this devolved power. As I have said in other places around this House when discussing other legislation, I trust local people to make the right decisions for their areas, and I hope that Labour Members would as well.
Catherine McKinnell
It is incredibly frustrating to listen to the Minister talk about empowering local communities when he knows full well that he is putting local authorities up and down the country in an invidious position over central Government funding cuts. It is therefore no surprise that local authorities will do anything to try to mitigate the impact on their communities, but it is no excuse for the change in this legislation that the Government are ramming through.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady tempts me to digress, but I will not go too far and test the Chair’s patience. However, I gently say to her that putting aside the fact that this is about local authorities making decisions about what is good for their local community, she might want to bear in mind, on her point about local government funding, that over the past few years, local authorities have managed to increase their reserves from about £13 billion to more than £22 billion. The revenue support grant that she referred to is actually a very small part of the income that local authorities get from a whole range of different areas.
I also find it slightly ironic that Labour Members, on listening to some of the things that we say about devolution, talk about closing post offices. Having seen how many post offices Labour closed, that is a slightly odd thing to hear.
David Mackintosh
I remind the Minister of times when I spoke to him in a previous capacity, when I was a local authority leader before being elected to this place. I was asking on behalf of my local authority for more powers and for the retention of business rates, all of which will be helped by the measures outlined in the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which highlights the difference as regards our genuine belief in devolving power and delivering on that, whether it is through the Localism Act 2011, the Housing and Planning Bill or indeed, through this Bill.
To put the Committee’s mind at rest, I do not intend to accept the very tempting offer from Labour Members and run through a whole list of all the fabulous tourism offers around Great Yarmouth. I just encourage them to come and see for themselves, and hopefully, after the Bill gets Royal Assent, they will be able to do some shopping and spend their money there as well. I will also not break into song and sing “Mamma Mia” to reflect what my mother would think about the Bill—I would not dare to put the Committee through that, but I am sure my mother will be looking forward to shopping for longer on a Sunday.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North was absolutely right in one thing she said at least: the rules on which we are discussing devolving a new power are more than 20 years old. They predate the internet, and there is now a whole different world of retail. The hon. Member for Sefton Central talked in his opening remarks about devolution and other Members have talked particularly about convenience stores, which I value. I met some in my constituency just a few weeks ago, and some of them were talking about how this could actually increase their trade, because people get used to being able to shop for longer through the day. That mirrors what we have seen elsewhere—those convenience stores have managed to have growth of about 5% over the last year—and it is worth noting that the number of convenience stores in Scotland, where there is that free trade opportunity, is higher per head than it is here in England. That is a really good example from very close to home of how convenience stores can thrive.
Hon. Members have made a few comments today about people’s desire for their religious views to be recognised and that even those who are not religious might wish to keep Sunday special. I remind hon. Members, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has rightly said a few times, that this is not compulsory. People do not have to shop on a Sunday. What this does is give an opportunity to people who want to take advantage of the wider flexibilities to be able to do so. That can play quite an important part in enhancing family life and, as I said, in creating more jobs for young people, women and others who want to take advantage of companies that decide that Sunday trading is in their interest and their customers’ interest.
Brandon Lewis
I will just make a bit more progress. The point has been made a few times about larger businesses and the differentials that we could see as local authorities make decisions locally around the country. It is right, as hon. Members have said, that local authorities could make different decisions on whether they take and use the powers, the format, how long they extend them for or how they choose to zone in their area. Council leaders have given me very different examples of what they want to do, and I encourage that, because it recognises the differences across the country for local communities.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister appears to have dispensed with the Opposition queries, but he has skimmed over my question about the family-friendly test. Will he comment, or has it gone the way of hugging huskies?
Brandon Lewis
If the hon. Lady looks at Hansard this evening, she will find that I have been responding to a lot of the queries of Opposition Members, specifically hers. Only a few seconds ago I said specifically on the family-friendly test that the Bill will give families more flexibility and opportunity on how they choose to spend their time on a Sunday. It will be a big advantage for families. I am sure that if it were not, we would have had hon. Members from Scotland jumping up to explain how Sunday trading has ruined family life in Scotland, a religious and family-focused country. I love spending time there and I have not heard that. I suspect that we will find that Scotland is a very good place to bring up a family, despite the fact that Scottish communities have freedom on Sunday trading. We want to give the opportunity to enjoy that same freedom to communities in this country.
Bill Esterson
In a similar vein, a number of us have mentioned the Prime Minister’s 20 April promise through his spokeswoman, before the general election, that there were no plans to change the Sunday trading laws in England and Wales. Will the Minister tell us when the Prime Minister changed his mind, or was it only a meaningless pre-election promise intended to get him through the last two weeks of the general election campaign?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is choosing to ignore the fact that since then there has been a general election, an entirely new Parliament and a Conservative Government, which is a good thing for our country. In 2015 the Prime Minister made it very clear at the Dispatch Box in this very House during Prime Minister’s Question Time that he felt it was time to review Sunday trading laws on the basis that they are outdated and were passed pre-internet.
Devolving the powers will enable local leaders, who are locally accountable, to decide for themselves what the right approach is to extending Sunday trading hours, reflecting local preferences, shopping habits and local economic conditions. It will provide consumers, businesses and shop workers with greater choice, opportunity and convenience. It will empower local leaders to support bricks and mortar shops in their local high streets and town centres, helping them to compete with the internet retailers that operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week and deliver on Sundays, too.
Kevin Brennan
As I understand it, the Minister’s explanation for the Prime Minister’s damascene conversion between April and June is that he discovered the internet. Is that correct?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is stretching it a little far to make a joke. If he looks back at Prime Minister’s questions, he will find that, as I outlined, the Prime Minister made the point that it was right to review Sunday trading laws in light of the fact that the current rules date from before the internet existed. I was very clear about that.
The change will also ensure that we get a bigger opportunity to drive competition and productivity, reducing prices and improving convenience for consumers. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that we have a Prime Minister who cares about our economy and local communities having not only power, but local choice. We want to support our towns and cities to create jobs and have greater prosperity and to enable them to compete for lucrative international tourism, too. Larger shops opening for longer can benefit smaller shops, food establishments and tourism attractions by bringing footfall in. The larger shops draw footfall into our town centres and having them open is good for our town centres.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister is making an eloquent speech, but it appears to be completely evidence-free. The evidence available to us appears to say the absolute opposite to him. Will he please provide some evidence base for what he is saying?
Brandon Lewis
I outlined the logic behind what we are doing earlier today. The hon. Lady can also have a look at the Government response to the consultation, which is clear on these matters. We are determined to ensure that we deliver the amendments, which provide choice for local areas on what suits their local preferences and their local economic conditions, choice for retailers to open at times that better suit the needs of their customers and choice for consumers on where and when to shop for a wider range of goods and services.
The strengthened rights for shop workers mean that the benefits of the proposals can be delivered while protecting those shop workers who do not want to work at all on a Sunday or who do not want to work longer hours on a Sunday. They deliver flexibility at a local level, which is crucial in ensuring that local communities and local economies can play to their local strengths. Whether it is by capitalising on tourist spend or catering for shoppers later in the day, the amendments will help those local economies, and by extension our UK economy, to grow. That is why the amendments represent an essential modernisation of a piece of law that in reality is no longer fit for purpose in our modern consumer world.
Kevin Brennan
Welcome back, Sir David. We have heard about people’s experiences. My first job was in Fine Fare, which is probably defunct now, stacking shelves and cleaning the toilets for 48.5p an hour. When I graduated to Marks and Spencer, my mother said it was the happiest day of her life. I have that grassroots experience of the retail industry, although it is not the considerable experience of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds.
I will not detain the Committee for a long, because of the time. We have had an extensive debate. Most of the issues have been aired pretty well, and I will not repeat all the points. The Minister, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe, often chunters about us talking about process, but there is a fundamental objection about the process and the manner in which the Government have gone about introducing these things. The Prime Minister made commitments in April and suddenly changed his mind upon discovering the internet a few months later and decided that something needed to be done desperately and urgently. In the meantime, the convenience of a general election had intervened, meaning he would not have to face the electorate for another five years.
Mary Creagh
Does my hon. Friend agree that the invention of the internet is an argument against Sunday trading, because it gives busy working parents the opportunity to buy online from supermarkets and department stores and to have things delivered at their leisure and convenience, rather than dragging the kids around the shops at the weekend? Frankly, that is something that most families detest and despise—certainly my family do.
Kevin Brennan
The other growing trend is ordering things on the internet and picking them up in the shop at another time. That is increasingly how people shop these days; certainly my own wife does it frequently. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Wait for it. I have yet to do that myself, because as a former Marks and Spencer Saturday boy, I like to try my suits on before I buy them. There are also, of course, different consumer rights for those who order online.
The changes have been introduced halfway through the Bill’s life, conveniently swerving around the Bishops in the House of Lords, who might have had something to say, as might other Members of that House, about keeping Sunday special. It is a highly controversial measure, and there is concern about it across this House, on the Conservative Benches as well as in other parties. That is why we properly have an extra half-day of time carved out on Report to discuss the Bill.
I was going to suggest that if working on a Sunday is nothing to be concerned about, perhaps that debate should take place on a Sunday here in Parliament, and we should all come back—I see the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds nodding in approval. I would be certainly happy to do so if the Government want to table it on a Sunday, because I am sure it is no inconvenience whatever to anyone to come to work on a Sunday. [Interruption.] I do not sense universal assent to my proposal, but the hon. Lady was in favour of it.
As a result of that extra time, we will have an opportunity to test the opinion of the whole House on this subject. As this is a House of Lords Bill, it is not enactable in this House, so constitutionally, in this instance it is the Lords who have a significant say, and no Salisbury convention applies, because it was not included in the governing party’s manifesto. Indeed, the Prime Minister said that he would do the opposite, and had no plans to do anything about Sunday trading until his sudden discovery of the internet.
Therefore, if the Bill survives Report in the House of Commons and their lordships get it back, I am sure they will want to spend extensive time on the measure, given that they were not allowed to consider it because the Government did not have the courtesy to introduce it at the beginning of the Bill. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, the consultation was extremely short and was then sat on for months after the Bill had gone through its stages in the House of Lords before the Government announced, on the cusp of Second Reading, that they had had another sudden revelation and decided that they needed to put the measure into this Bill, even though it was halfway through its parliamentary journey.
We need time to cogitate further on the measure, but in doing so, I have certainly been convinced by the arguments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are likely to oppose it on Report. I enjoyed all their speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North spoke with a great deal of knowledge, not least, as she pointed out, because of her family interest, in the form of her partner’s occupation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley entertained us hugely by telling us that she had foiled a bank robbery. The only disappointing thing was that apparently no video survives of that day; I am sure that we would all have liked to see it. We look forward to hearing the full story outside this room. She also made some vital points about why the measure should not be adopted. We also heard contributions in the form of interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central set out an extensive case for why the measure is wrong.
I say to our colleagues from the Scottish National party that when people were debating a British compromise or an English compromise, I was feeling slightly forgotten over here in the corner, as a constituency Member representing a Welsh seat, because of course these measures also apply to Wales. However, they will affect Scotland and Northern Ireland. I know that USDAW has communicated with Scottish MPs on behalf of its 46,000 members in Scotland to say that its view is that the sort of premium pay that is available to workers in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland for working on Sundays is already under severe threat as a result of the nature of the market and the prospect of these measures being introduced.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We debated some elements of the Groceries Code Adjudicator as part of our lengthy discussions about the creation of the small business commissioner a long time ago—two and a bit weeks ago, at the start of our proceedings. There is a great deal of overlap in the nature and aims of the adjudicator and the commissioner. Both were created to give a voice to smaller suppliers in their dealings with larger companies and both were designed to address the imbalance in those relationships.
New clause 15 seeks to acknowledge that there will be considerable concern about the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which was set up in 2013, and the small business commissioner, when it is established, presumably later this year, and the extent of their powers, the breadth of their remit and the teeth they have to deliver in their sectors. I appreciate that the general review of the Groceries Code Adjudicator is expected this year. We are asking in the new clause for a specific investigation of the adjudicator’s role, which is particularly relevant to the Bill because of the relationship with the small business commissioner. The review we are asking for is to learn from the first years of the Groceries Code Adjudicator so that we can apply those lessons to the post of the small business commissioner. The new clause is a simple way of saying that we did not get it quite right in 2013 and that we have an opportunity to learn valuable lessons now. We ought to ensure that those lessons are taken on board at the appropriate stage, which is in this Bill.
On confidentiality, we have said repeatedly, here and in the Lords, that if small businesses complain about big businesses that are their customers, they risk damaging their business relationships. Now, the Groceries Code Adjudicator has said that a lack of trust is a barrier to suppliers who might have complaints. Lord Mendelsohn cited that as a key area of concern. Without robust provisions for confidentiality and without learning from the experience of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, we will be doomed to repeat those deficiencies with the small business commissioner.
When it comes to providing greater powers for the commissioner, we can learn lessons from the Groceries Code Adjudicator. In January 2015, the then coalition Government announced that they would give the Groceries Code Adjudicator the ability to fine supermarkets 1% of their annual turnover for serious breaches of the grocery code. This was a recognition that the adjudicator needed to back up their influence with greater powers, but it took almost two years after the creation of the post to ensure that those powers were available. The new clause would avoid repeating that delay as we create the post of the small business commissioner. It would ensure that the commissioner’s office has the powers needed to do the job from day one by learning from the experience of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
When the position of Groceries Code Adjudicator was created, concerns were raised about its ability to fulfil the Government’s ambitions for it, because it was given too few staff and resources to deliver effective change. Let us remember that the Groceries Code Adjudicator works only three days a week and has only five staff, who are responsible for 7,000 direct suppliers and a further 300,000 indirect suppliers. As we have pointed out, it is clear from the Australian model that this could well be a cause of problems in the UK. The Groceries Code Adjudicator is another reference point from which we can learn, as she is an adjudicator working part-time with five staff responsible for so many suppliers. With the small business commissioner, we are looking at a similarly small team taking responsibility for an estimated 390,000 disputes from 70,000 businesses.
We had an impact assessment for the creation of the small business commissioner. It is a shame, is it not, that we did not have one for Sunday trading. The impact assessment for the small business commissioner estimated that the commissioner’s team would deal with only 500 complaints out of the estimated 390,000 disputes every year. From the experience and comments of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, we know that she is understaffed. She has made it clear that she was given a small office and spends much of her time just explaining what she can and cannot do, and is left with little time to actually deliver. That is why there has been only one investigation in two years, as good as that investigation clearly was. She has made it clear that she cannot cover the suppliers in the supply chain.
As it stands, we will be putting more pressure on the small business commissioner, because the volume of potential activity is even greater. We need to learn the lessons and that is what the new clause is about. If the Government will not change the Bill, we should at least try to speed up the process of evolving the role to meet the challenges that the small business commissioner will face. I hope the Government will learn and apply the lessons from the first years of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Throughout the process, we have called for the remit of the small business commissioner to be broadened and for the commissioner to have the resources at his or her disposal to fulfil the ambitions that we all have for the post. We want the commissioner to be given the powers to deliver real change to the crippling culture of late payments and poor business practice.
We have repeatedly used the example of the Australian small business commissioner, because it is a good model and we stand to learn a good deal from it. New clause 15 is an attempt to make sure that the powers that we believe ought to be put in place now are at least fast-tracked for the small business commissioner, by keeping a weather eye on and learning from the experience of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, in this last sitting.
My thoughts are broadly in line with those of the hon. Member for Sefton Central. As we know, this Bill introduces the small business commissioner, which obviously has cross-party support. Amendments have been tabled that we thought might give the office of the small business commissioner more teeth, to allow it to work more efficiently on behalf of those it will represent. Obviously the amendments have not been accepted today, but hopefully the Government will consider that in future.
In thinking about the office of the small business commissioner, it certainly makes sense to think about the office of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Given that this is a wide-ranging Bill anyway, it makes sense to use it as an opportunity to review the powers and purpose of the GCA and to learn from its short history.
When the GCA was created in 2013, my SNP colleagues gave their support at that time, but my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) urged the Government to give the GCA enough power to address two key issues that she raised then. First, she highlighted the underlying problems caused by the concentration of power in the grocery supply chain due to the dominance of a handful of large supermarkets. We are well aware of the recent issue of Tesco breaking the code of practice and abusing its market position to prioritise its cash flow and finances over those of their suppliers. It was often excessively late with its payments. Tesco did that, but what was the outcome of the case? Yes, Tesco was named and shamed, which was good—the matter has been highlighted and Tesco has said it will not do it again—but the GCA, Christine Tacon, was unable to impose a fine, because she was only given the power to impose fines in 2015, two years after the establishment of her office.
The second issue that my hon. Friend highlighted was about sustainable food production and the ability of non-direct suppliers to supermarkets to make complaints that the GCA can investigate and follow through on. Recently we have seen evidence that this issue is rearing its head again, with the dairy farmers and the price they receive for milk. A stronger GCA may have been able to intervene and take greater action in support of the farmers or those at the end of a supply chain, who we need to survive in order to get the end product, provide local employment and have a greener product as a result of a smaller carbon footprint. Also, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) has called for the GCA to have greater powers over labelling, to make the supply chain from source to product much clearer.
Overall, the position of the GCA is welcome, but there are still imperfections. The new clause could allow some of them to be smoothed out. I support the new clause and certainly agree with the principle behind it.
Anna Soubry
It is obviously a pleasure, Sir David, to serve under your chairmanship in our final sitting.
In short, the Government are already committed to reviewing the GCA after next month. That commitment is in the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013, so this very review is going to happen; it is in statute. Yes, we are looking at the terms of reference. We are preparing them to make sure they include all the things we want the review to look at, so we are looking at consideration of the remit and the powers of the GCA being part of that review.
The review will cover the period up to 31 March, so we will begin the public consultation shortly after that date, as part of the review, providing an opportunity for everyone to input their views. As I say, it is all there already in the 2013 Act. The new clause is just not necessary, because all these points are covered already.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for his reminder of some of the issues, challenges and experiences of those who have sought help from the GCA in the last two years, and of the need for greater support and resource for the office of the GCA.
The reason for the new clause was to draw the parallels between the adjudicator and the commissioner. I acknowledged in my opening remarks that the review was already taking place, but it is important to have debates such as this to get the Minister on the record, as we have done a few times in Committee, and she has now made clear what will happen.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 25—Broadband: rollout—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations set targets for electronic communications bodies to roll out, to businesses and commercial organisations, more than 95% coverage of—
(a) basic broadband,
(b) superfast broadband, and
(c) mobile phone coverage
by the end of 2016.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the progress that has been made on the targets provided for by subsection (1), and the impact of—
(a) basic broadband,
(b) superfast broadband and
(c) mobile coverage technology
on enterprise and growth in the rural economy.
(3) The report provided for in subsection (2) should be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 26—Broadband: rollout to business parks—
“The Secretary of State shall direct Broadband Delivery UK to include business parks and industrial estates, including those in non-residential areas, in their plans for roll out of universal superfast broadband.”
Kevin Brennan
I will be extremely brief. We rehearsed a lot of what I wanted to say on these new clauses, which are to do with digital roll-out, earlier in stand part debates on such matters. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 31
Business rate: Exemptions
“Agricultural land and buildings used for cultural events and festivals are exempt from business rates and the provisions outlined in sections 25 and 26.”—(Kevin Brennan.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kevin Brennan
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Subject to hon. Members, this might be the final substantial matter we discuss in Committee, certainly on the bits that I intend to cover. I hope we will have time at the end for the traditional points of order and it looks like we will, so I will not make such remarks at this point.
The new clause deals with festivals. The British farming industry is still under threat from a number of directions and the advice that all of us, under different Governments, have given farmers is to diversify, think laterally and be innovative. Many have done so and some have decided to use their assets such as land, barns and so on for occasional festivals and cultural events.
I know you are an MP4 fan, Sir David, so you will not be surprised to hear that my band—perhaps I should declare an interest, although we do not get paid—MP4 has performed at festivals in hon. Members’ constituencies from across the House, being a cross-party venture. The group includes the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and the former Member for Brigg and Goole. We have an interest because we have direct experience of participating as performers and of being in the audience at such events. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members enjoy festivals in their constituencies and right across the country.
The Valuation Office Agency—we are back on that subject again—is now pursuing those farmers for additional rates and in some cases it is making that retrospective by turning up at farmers’ houses and presenting them with bills that go back several years if they have held festivals on their land. In some cases, the rate demands have been as high as £60,000. That was discussed in the Lords, and Lord Stevenson asked for derogation to be offered for short-lived and one-off festivals. Such festivals, as we have heard, are often in rural areas and bring much-needed economic activity to many suppliers in the locality, even on a Sunday. The cultural benefits that can accrue should also be taken into consideration. Imposing steep business rates for occasional events may lead to the events not taking place.
In replying to the debate in the other place, Baroness Neville-Rolfe said:
“I can assure noble Lords that if there are no permanent physical adaptations to the land to facilitate, for example, festival use, and the duration…is only a matter of a few days, it is unlikely to attract a rating assessment in its own right, and any festival operator or land owner who is unsure of when they may incur a rates bill should contact the Valuation Office Agency… I also know that the Valuation Office Agency recognises the need for clarity and consistency in this sector and is working with the industry to draw up guidance to help event organisers. It hopes to have guidance ready…for the festival season next year.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2015; Vol. 765, c. GC314.]
She said that last year. From previous exchanges in Committee, I thought that we were not encouraging people to go to the Valuation Office Agency and to start clogging up the system with even more requests for information and even more appeals against ratings, but that is the Minister’s advice. She seems to indicate that she anticipates that festivals such as the ones I am talking about, where farmers try to make innovative use of their land but where it is not the mainstay of their business in any way, shape or form—they are effectively hiring out their land; they are not building major infrastructure on their land—should not be attracting rates in the way that the Valuation Office Agency seems to be pursuing.
The festival season will soon be upon us. It is hard to believe it sometimes, looking at the weather, but spring is on its way—I think spring officially starts on Tuesday, St David’s day, and we may see the odd daffodil poking through soon. Will the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise inform the Committee—[Interruption.] I am pausing so that she can hear what I am saying to her.
Kevin Brennan
She says she is listening. She is remarkable, because she can speak and listen at the same time. That is one of her many remarkable talents.
Will the Minister inform the Committee of what progress has been made on this issue since it was discussed in the House of Lords in November? Can she clarify some of Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s comments? Baroness Neville-Rolfe said that
“if there are no permanent physical adaptations…it is unlikely to attract a rating assessment in its own right”.
When she said that, she talked about “a few days”, and I would like some clarity. Are we talking about two days, three days, four days? Will a week count as a few days, or is it less than a week? Some clarity would help people who are holding festivals, as would clarity on what constitutes a “permanent physical adaptation”. If someone builds a bridge over a stream, is that a permanent physical adaptation, or are we talking about the building of hard standing or something of that kind? If a farmer improves health and safety on their farm to accommodate lots of festivalgoers, is that the sort of thing that means the Valuation Office Agency will immediately start taking an interest?
Can the Minister assure us that the Valuation Office Agency’s advice will be uniform across the country? Has there been an attempt to provide clarity and consistency in ministerial advice to Valuation Office Agency officers? We have heard about the backlog of 300,000 rate appeals, so clarity and consistency of advice would help to prevent unnecessary appeals. I hope the Minister can say something positive about that, given what Baroness Neville-Rolfe said in the Lords about looking at the matter further.
Lord Stevenson informed the Grand Committee that Valuation Office Agency officers had begun to raise invoices against landowners for the use of their land for festivals. How did that start to come about? Has there been a central instruction to do it? What is the Minister’s view of the Valuation Office Agency pursuing such things retrospectively, sometimes going back several years? Does the Department have a position on whether that should happen or whether, if the Valuation Office Agency is going to start levying rates on festivals, it should not be done retrospectively?
This is a probing new clause. If the Minister can provide some information about the progress that the Government have made since this was discussed in the Lords, I will withdraw it at the end of her response.
Anna Soubry
If there is no permanent physical adaptation to the land to facilitate festival use, and the duration of the festival is a matter of only a few days, it is very unlikely to attract a rating assessment in its own right. That is true whether the festival is on agricultural land or anywhere else. We do not dispute that some event organisers struggle with the rules, so the Valuation Office Agency is working with the industry to help event organisers understand the rules and how to comply.
In many instances, the people organising that sort of event work hand in glove with their local authority. These are all local matters. I am of the view, perhaps unlike Labour Members, that we can trust local authorities to work with people, come to the right decisions and exercise bucketloads of good common sense so the rules are not misinterpreted or over-interpreted.
I have helpfully been told that the Valuation Office Agency’s review of festivals is now complete, and that rate payers should now be clear about any potential ratings liability. They are encouraged to contact the agency if they are in any way unclear about them. That review has taken place.
We have given local authorities wide powers to grant rate relief in such circumstances. Where they do so, central Government will pick up half the cost. We are looking at reliefs and exemptions in any event as part of the business rate review, which is due to report in the Budget next month. We do not want to pre-empt the result of it. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s questions and satisfies him.
Kevin Brennan
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I will get into some more detail later, while giving it further consideration.
I said that my band played at festivals in several right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, one of which was the constituency of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. After this debate, I will check with him about whether that festival attracted any ratings. As a charitable local event, it does not have a permanent structure in place on the farmer’s field in which it is held.
It is right that we trust local authorities, but it is also right that parliamentarians respond to concerns brought to us from around the country by local people who have been affected by decisions taken at a local level. It is our duty to raise them in Parliament, debate them and compare what is going on around the country to see whether in some places very different interpretations are being made, and to ensure fairness and consistency. It is our job to do that, so it is entirely appropriate that we debate this issue, as they did in their Lordships’ House. I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers
Employment Rights Act 1996
1 The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
2 In section 41 (opted-out shop workers and betting workers), for subsection (3) substitute—
(3) In this Act “notice period”, in relation to an opted-out shop worker or an opted-out betting worker, means—
(a) in the case of an opted-out shop worker who does shop work in or about a large shop, the period of one month beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given;
(b) in any other case, the period of three months beginning with that day.
This subsection is subject to sections 41D(2) and 42(2).”
3 After section 41 insert—
“41A Notice of objection by shop workers to working additional hours on Sunday
(1) A shop worker may at any time give to his or her employer a written notice, signed and dated by the shop worker, to the effect that he or she objects to doing shop work for additional hours on Sunday.
(2) In this Part—
“additional hours” means any number of hours of shop work that a shop worker is (or could be) required to work under a contract of employment on Sunday that are(or would be) in excess of the shop worker’s normal Sunday working hours;
“objection notice” means a notice given under subsection (1).
(3) The “normal Sunday working hours” of a shop worker are to be calculated in accordance with regulations.
(4) Regulations under this section may provide—
(a) for the calculation to be determined (for example) by reference to the average number of hours that the shop worker has worked on Sundays during a period specified or described in the regulations;
(b) for a calculation of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) to be varied in special cases;
(c) for the right to give an objection notice not to be exercisable in special cases (and subsection (1) is subject to provision made by virtue of this paragraph).
(5) Provision under subsection (4)( b) or (c) may, in particular, include provision—
(a) about how the calculation of normal Sunday working hours is to be made in the case of a shop worker who has not been employed for a sufficient period of time to enable a calculation to be made as otherwise provided for in the regulations;
(b) for the right to give an objection notice not to be exercisable by such a shop worker until he or she has completed a period of employment specified or described in the regulations.
(6) But regulations under this section may not include provision preventing a shop worker who has been continuously employed under a contract of employment for a period of one year or more from giving to the employer an objection notice.
(7) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
41B Explanatory statement: persons who become shop workers
(1) This section applies where a person becomes a shop worker who, under a contract of employment, is or may be required to do shop work on Sundays.
(2) The employer must give to the shop worker a written statement informing the shop worker of the following rights—
(a) the right to object to working on Sundays by giving the employer an opting-out notice (if section 40 applies to the shop worker);
(b) the right to object to doing shop work for additional hours on Sundays by giving the employer an objection notice.
(3) The statement must be given before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which the person becomes a shop worker as mentioned in subsection (1).
(4) An employer does not fail to comply with subsections (2) and (3) in a case where, before the end of the period referred to in subsection (3), the shop worker has given to the employer an opting-out notice (and that notice has not been withdrawn).
(5) A statement under this section must comply with such requirements as to form and content as regulations may provide.
(6) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
41C Explanatory statement: shop workers at commencement date
(1) This section applies where—
(a) under a contract of employment a shop worker is or may be required to do shop work on Sundays, and
(b) the shop worker was employed under that contract on the day before the commencement date.
(2) The shop worker’s employer must give to the shop worker a written statement informing the shop worker of the rights mentioned in section 41B(2).
(3) The statement must be given before the end of the period of two months beginning with the commencement date.
(4) An employer does not fail to comply with subsections (2) and (3) in a case where, before the end of the period referred to in subsection (3), the shop worker has given to the employer an opting-out notice (and that notice has not been withdrawn).
(5) A statement under this section must comply with such requirements as to form and content as regulations may provide.
(6) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
(7) In this section “commencement date” means the date appointed by regulations under section38 of the Enterprise Act 2016 for the coming into force of section (Extended Sunday opening hour and Sunday working)(5) of, and Schedule (Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers) to, that Act.
41D Failure to give explanatory statement under section 41B or 41C
(1) This section applies if an employer fails to give to a shop worker a written statement in accordance with—
(a) section 41B(2) and (3), or
(b) section 41C(2) and (3).
(2) If the shop worker gives to the employer an opting-out notice, the notice period under section 41(3) that applies in relation to the shop worker is varied as follows—
(a) if the notice period under that provision would have been one month, it becomes 7 days instead;
(b) if the notice period under that provision would have been three months, it becomes one month instead.
(3) If the shop worker gives to the employer an objection notice, the relevant period under section 43ZA(2) that applies in relation to the shop worker is varied as follows—
(a) if the relevant period under that provision would have been one month, it becomes 7 days instead;
(b) if the relevant period under that provision would have been three months, it becomes one month instead.”
4 (1) Section 42 (explanatory statement) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “statement” insert “: betting workers”.
(3) In subsection (1) omit “shop worker or”.
(4) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a) omit “shop worker or”;
(b) in paragraph (b)—
(i) after “the” omit “shop worker or”;
(ii) omit “an opted-out shop worker or”.
(5) In subsection (3) omit “shop worker or”.
(6) Omit subsection (4).
(7) In subsection (6)—
(a) for “forms” substitute “form”;
(b) for “subsections (4) and (5)” substitute “subsection (5)”.
5 In the heading of section 43, after “work” insert “: opting-out notices”.
6 After section 43 (in Part 4) insert—
“43ZA Contractual requirements relating to working additional hours on Sundays: objection notices
(1) Where a shop worker gives to his or her employer an objection notice, any agreement entered into between the shop worker and the employer becomes unenforceable to the extent that—
(a) it requires the shop worker to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday after the end of the relevant period, or
(b) it requires the employer to provide the shop worker with shop work for additional hours on Sunday after the end of that period.
(2) The “relevant period” is—
(a) in the case of a shop worker who is or may be required to do shop work in or about a large shop, the period of one month beginning with the day on which the objection notice is given;
(b) in any other case, the period of three months beginning with that day.
This subsection is subject to section 41D(3).
(3) A shop worker who has given an objection notice may revoke the notice by giving a further written notice to the employer.
(4) Where—
(a) a shop worker gives to the employer a notice under subsection (3), and
(b) after giving the notice the shop worker expressly agrees with the employer to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday (whether on Sundays generally or on a particular Sunday),
the contract of employment between the shop worker and the employer is to be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.
(5) The reference in subsection (1) to any agreement—
(a) includes the contract of employment under which the shop worker is employed immediately before giving the objection notice;
(b) includes an agreement of a kind mentioned in subsection (4), or a contract of employment as taken to be varied under that subsection, only if an objection notice is given in relation to the working of additional hours under that agreement or contract as varied.
43ZB Interpretation
(1) In this Part—
“additional hours” has the meaning given in section 41A(2);
“large shop” means a shop which has a relevant floor area exceeding 280 square metres;
“objection notice” has the meaning given in section 41A(2);
“regulations” means regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) In the definition of “large shop” in subsection (1)—
(a) “shop” means any premises where there is carried on a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale of goods;
(b) “relevant floor area” means the internal floor area of so much of the large shop in question as consists of or is comprised in a building.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), any part of the shop which is not used for the serving of customers in connection with the sale or display of goods is to be disregarded.
(4) The references in subsections (2) and (3) to the sale of goods does not include—
(a) the sale of meals, refreshments or alcohol (within the meaning of the Licensing Act 2003) for consumption on the premises on which they are sold, or
(b) the sale of meals or refreshments prepared to order for immediate consumption off those premises.”
7 After section 45 insert—
“45ZA Sunday working for shop workers: additional hours
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a shop worker has given an objection notice to his or her employer and the notice has not been withdrawn.
(2) The shop worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the employer done on the ground that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to anything done on the ground that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the relevant period.
(4) A shop worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his or her employer on the ground that the shop worker gave (or proposed to give) an objection notice to the employer.
(5) Subsections (2) and (4) do not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal (within the meaning of Part 10).
(6) For the purposes of this section, a shop worker who does not do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment by—
(a) a failure to pay remuneration in respect of doing shop work for additional hours on Sunday which the shop worker has not done, or
(7) Subsections (8) and (9) apply where—
(a) an employer offers to pay a sum specified in the offer to a shop worker if he or she agrees to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday, and
(b) the shop worker—
(i) has given an objection notice to the employer that has not been withdrawn, or
(ii) is not obliged under a contract of employment to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday.
(8) A shop worker to whom the offer is not made is not to be regarded for the purposes of this section as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure—
(a) to make the offer to the shop worker, or
(b) to pay the shop worker the sum specified in the offer.
(9) A shop worker who does not accept the offer is not to be regarded for the purposes of this section as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to pay the shop worker the sum specified in the offer.
(10) In this section—
“additional hours” and “objection notice” have the meanings given by section 41A(2);
“relevant period” means the period determined by section 43ZA(2) (but subject to section 41D(3)).”
8 After section 101 insert—
“101ZA Shop workers who refuse to work additional hours on Sunday
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a shop worker has given an objection notice that has not been withdrawn and he or she is dismissed.
(2) The shop worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or the principal reason) for the dismissal is that he or she refused, or proposed to refuse, to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the relevant period.
(4) A shop worker who is dismissed is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is that the worker gave (or proposed to give) an objection notice to the employer.
(5) In this section—
“additional hours” and “objection notice” have the meanings given by section 41A(2);
“relevant period” means the period determined by section 43ZA(2) (but subject to section 41D(3)).”
9 In section 236 (orders and regulations), in subsection (3) after “27B,” insert “41A that include provision under subsection (4)(c) of that section,”.
Employment Act 2002
10 In section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 (failure to give statement of employment particulars etc)—
(a) in subsection (2)(b), after “change)” insert “or under section 41B or 41C of that Act (duty to give a written statement in relation to rights not to work on Sunday)”;
(b) in subsection (3)(b), after “1996” insert “or under section 41B or 41C of that Act”.”
This new Schedule contains amendments to employment legislation. The amendments: (a) shorten the notice period for opting out of Sunday work in the case of shop workers at large shops, (b) confer a new right to object to working additional hours on Sunday, (c) require employers to give statements explaining those rights, (d) confer protections against detriment and unfair dismissal for refusing to work additional hours on Sunday, and (e) provide for fines in tribunal proceedings if there is a failure to give explanatory statements.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Amendments made: (a), line 128 in paragraph 4(4), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) in the words after paragraph (b), omit “shop worker or””
This is a technical amendment of NS1 which removes a further reference to a shop worker from section 42 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as that section is to apply only to betting workers as a consequence of other amendments made by this New Schedule).
Amendment (b), line 192 in paragraph 6, in new section 43ZB(4)(a), after “2003” insert
“or, in relation to Scotland, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 16)”—(Brandon Lewis.)
This is a technical amendment that provides for a definition of “alcohol” in relation to Scotland by reference to the relevant legislation of the Scottish Parliament.
New schedule 1, as amended, read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 2
The Institute for Apprenticeships
1 The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is amended as follows.
2 In Part 1 (apprenticeships, study and training) before Chapter A1 insert—
“Chapter ZA1
The Institute for Apprenticeships
Establishment
ZA1 The Institute for Apprenticeships
‘(1) A body corporate known as the Institute for Apprenticeships is established.
(2) In this Act that body is referred to as “the IfA”.
(3) Schedule A1 makes further provision about the IfA.
General duties and functions
ZA2 General duties
‘(1) So far as relevant, and subject to any notice given by the Secretary of State under subsection (2), in performing its functions the IfA must have regard to—
(a) the reasonable requirements of industry, commerce, finance, the professions and other employers regarding education and training within the IfA’s remit;
(b) the reasonable requirements of persons who may wish to undertake education and training within the IfA’s remit;
(c) the need to ensure that education and training within the IfA’s remit is of an appropriate quality;
(d) the need to ensure that education and training within the IfA’s remit represents good value in relation to financial resources provided out of public funds;
(e) any information provided to it by any person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2) The Secretary of State may give a notice in writing to the IfA setting out other matters to which the IfA must have regard when performing its functions.
(3) The Secretary of State may not give a notice under subsection (2) more than once in any financial year (within the meaning given by section ZA6(6)), except as provided by subsection (4).
(4) Where in a financial year—
(a) a notice is given under subsection (2), and
(b) after the giving of the notice a new Parliament meets for the first time,
the Secretary of State may give one further notice under subsection (2) in that year.
(5) The IfA must perform its functions efficiently and effectively.
(6) For the purposes of this section, education or training is within the IfA’s remit if the education or training is or may be provided in the course of an approved English apprenticeship.
(7) Subsection (1) and any notice under subsection (2) do not apply in relation to functions that are— Where directions or regulations so provide, the directions or regulations—
(a) delegated by directions under section ZA4, or
(b) conferred by regulations under section ZA5,
unless the regulations or directions provide for them to apply in relation to the functions.
(c) may provide for any education or training to which the functions relate to be treated as within the IfA’s remit for the purposes of this section;
(d) may provide for subsection (1) and any notice under subsection (2) to apply in relation to the functions with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(8) The Secretary of State must—
(a) publish in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit any notice under subsection (2), and
(b) lay a copy of it before Parliament.
ZA3 Provision of advice and assistance to the Secretary of State etc
‘(1) The IfA may, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State, provide the Secretary of State with advice and assistance in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England.
(2) The Secretary of State’s functions mentioned in subsection (1) include those under section 100(1A) or otherwise relating to the funding of apprenticeships in relation to England.
ZA4 Delegation of functions to the IfA by Secretary of State
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by direction delegate to the IfA any of the Secretary of State’s functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England.
(2) The functions may be delegated—
(a) to any extent that the Secretary of State specifies in the direction, and
(b) subject to any conditions that the Secretary of State specifies in the direction.
(3) The Secretary of State’s functions mentioned in subsection (1) include those under section 100(1A) or otherwise relating to the funding of apprenticeships in relation to England.
ZA5 Conferral of further functions on the IfA by regulations
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer on the IfA such functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) A function conferred by regulations under subsection (1) may involve the exercise of a discretion.
ZA6 Annual and other reports
‘(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, the IfA must prepare an annual report.
(2) An annual report is a report which includes—
(a) a description of what the IfA has done during the year, including a description of what the IfA has done as a result of any notice given by the Secretary of State under section ZA2(2),
(b) the statement of accounts prepared for that year under paragraph 11 of Schedule A1, and
(c) such other provision as the Secretary of State may direct.
(3) The IfA must send the report to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after it has been prepared.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State may direct the IfA to prepare, and send to the Secretary of State, as soon as reasonably practicable a report on any matter relating to its functions.
(6) In this section “financial year” means—
(a) the period beginning with the day on which this section comes into force and ending with the following 31 March, and
(b) each successive period of 12 months.
Compliance
ZA7 Secretary of State directions where the IfA fails to discharge duties etc
If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the IfA—
(a) has failed to discharge a duty imposed on it by or under this Act, or
(b) has acted or is proposing to act in an unreasonable way in exercising any function,
the Secretary of State may give the IfA such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
Directions
ZA8 General provision about directions under Chapters ZA1 and A1
‘(1) This section applies to a direction given to the IfA by the Secretary of State under this Chapter or Chapter A1.
(2) The IfA must comply with the direction.
(3) The direction must be in writing.”
3 Before section A1 insert—
“Introductory”
4 In section A1 (meaning of “approved English apprenticeship”), in subsection (3)(a) for “the Secretary of State has published an approved apprenticeship standard under section A2” substitute “an approved apprenticeship standard has been published under section A2”.
5 For section A2 (approved apprenticeship standards) substitute—
“Publication of standards and assessment plans
A2 Apprenticeship standards and assessment plans
‘(1) The IfA must publish—
(a) standards for such sectors of work as the IfA considers appropriate for the purposes of this Chapter, and
(b) assessment plans in respect of published standards.
(2) Each standard must—
(b) if there is more than one standard for the sector, describe the kind of work within the sector to which it relates.
(3) Each standard must set out the outcomes that persons seeking to complete an approved English apprenticeship are expected to attain in order to achieve the standard.
(4) An assessment plan in respect of a standard is a plan in accordance with which a person’s attainment of the outcomes set out in the standard is to be assessed.
(5) Each assessment plan must—
(b) set out the proposed arrangements for evaluating the quality of any assessment provided for by the plan.
(6) The following provisions supplement the provision made by this section—
section A2A makes provision about the preparation of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
sections A2B to A2D make provision related to ensuring the quality of apprenticeship assessments;
sections A2E and A2F make provision about the review, revision and withdrawal of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
section A2G makes provision for independent examinations of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
section A2H makes provision about the maintenance of a published list of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
section A2I provides for the automatic transfer to the IfA of copyright in apprenticeship standards and assessment plans.
A2A Preparation of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans
‘(1) Each standard or assessment plan published under section A2 must have been prepared by a group of persons and approved by the IfA.
(2) The group of persons that prepared a standard or assessment plan published under section A2 must have been approved by the IfA for the purposes of this section.
(3) The IfA may provide advice or assistance to a group of persons in connection with the preparation of a standard or assessment plan.
(4) The IfA must publish—
(a) information about matters that it takes into account when deciding whether or not to approve standards or plans for the purposes of subsection (1);
(b) information about matters that it takes into account when deciding whether or not to approve groups of persons for the purposes of subsection (2).
(5) When making a decision of the kind mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (b) in a particular case, the IfA may also take into account such other matters as it considers appropriate in the case in question.
(6) Information published under subsection (4) may be revised or replaced, and the IfA must publish under that subsection any revised or replacement information.
Quality assurance
A2B Evaluation of quality of apprenticeship assessments
‘(1) The IfA must secure that evaluations are carried out of the quality of apprenticeship assessments provided by persons in relation to assessment plans published under section A2.
(2) “Apprenticeship assessment” means the assessment of a person’s attainment of the outcomes set out in the standard to which the assessment plan relates.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the IfA may approve or make arrangements for other persons to carry out evaluations.
A2C Unsatisfactory apprenticeship assessments
‘(1) If the IfA considers that the quality of any apprenticeship assessment provided by a person is or may become unsatisfactory, it may carry out a review of the assessment, or make arrangements with another person for the carrying out of such a review.
(2) The IfA may, in consequence of a review, make arrangements for the purpose of improving the quality of the assessment to which the review relates.
(3) If the IfA—
(a) considers that the quality of any apprenticeship assessment provided by a person is or may become unsatisfactory, or
(b) that a person who provides an apprenticeship assessment has failed to co-operate with a review carried out under this section or with arrangements made under subsection (2),
it may report the matter to the Secretary of State or such other person as the IfA considers appropriate.
(4) A report under subsection (3) may contain recommendations as to the action to be taken by the person to whom the report is made.
(5) The IfA may publish a report under subsection (3).
A2D Committee to advise on quality evaluations etc
‘(1) The IfA may establish a committee with—
(a) the function of giving the IfA advice on the performance of its functions under sections A2B and A2C, and
(b) such other functions as may be conferred on the committee by the IfA.
(2) A majority of the members of the committee—
(a) must be persons who appear to the IfA to have experience of the assessment of education or training, and
(b) must not be members of the IfA.
(3) Subject to that, Schedule A1 applies to a committee established under this section as it applies to committees established under paragraph 7 of that Schedule.
Review, revision and withdrawal
A2E Regular reviews of published standards and assessment plans
‘(1) The IfA must maintain arrangements for the review at regular intervals of each standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, with a view to determining whether the standard or plan ought to be revised or withdrawn.
(2) In respect of each standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, the IfA must publish information about the intervals at which those reviews are to be conducted.
A2F Revision or withdrawal of published standards and assessment plans
‘(1) The IfA may—
(a) publish a revised version of a standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, or
(b) withdraw a standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter (with or without publishing another in its place).
(2) Section A2A applies in relation to a revised version of a standard or plan published under this section as it applies in relation to a standard or plan published under section A2.
Other provisions about English approved apprenticeships
A2G Examinations by independent third parties
‘(1) Before the IfA approves a standard or assessment plan for the purposes of section A2A(1) it must make arrangements for the carrying out of an examination of the standard or plan by an independent third party.
(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a revised version of a standard or assessment plan, but the IfA may, for the purposes of a review under section A2E or at any other time, make arrangements for the carrying out of an examination of a standard or assessment plan by an independent third party.
(3) Where an examination of a standard or assessment plan is carried out under this section, the IfA must take account of the finding of the examination in exercising its functions in relation to the standard or plan under this Chapter.
(4) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents the IfA deciding to reject a standard or assessment plan without first making arrangements for the carrying out of an examination by an independent third party.
A2H List of published standards and assessment plans
‘(1) The IfA must maintain a list of the standards and assessment plans published by it under this Chapter.
(2) In respect of each standard and plan listed (including any revised version), the list must include details of when it comes into force.
(3) Where a revised version is listed, the list must include a general description of the cases to which the revised version applies.
(4) Where a standard or plan has been withdrawn, the list must include details of when the withdrawal comes into force and a general description of the cases to which it applies.
(5) The IfA must secure that the list is available free of charge at all reasonable times.
A2I Transfer of copyright in standards and assessment plans
‘(1) This section applies where—
(a) a standard or assessment plan is approved by the IfA undersection A2A, and
(b) a person (other than the IfA) is entitled, immediately before the time the approval is given, to any right or interest in any copyright in the standard or plan.
(2) The right or interest is, by virtue of this section, transferred from that person to the IfA at the time the approval is given.
(3) The IfA must ensure that a standard or assessment plan in relation to which a right or interest has transferred by virtue of subsection (2) is made available to the public, subject to any conditions that the IfA considers appropriate.”
6 (1) Section A3 (power to issue apprenticeship certificate) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for “to” substitute “in respect of”.
(3) In subsection (2), for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) the supply by the Secretary of State of apprenticeship certificates issued under that subsection, and copies of those certificates, to—
(i) persons in respect of whom they were issued;
(ii) persons for whom those persons work or have worked under approved English apprenticeship agreements to which the certificates relate.”
7 In section 122 (sharing of information for education and training purposes)—
(a) in subsection (3) (persons who may provide and receive information), after paragraph (f) insert—
“(g) the IfA.”;
(b) in subsection (5) (functions for the purposes of which information may be provided)—
(i) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b), and
(ii) after paragraph (b) insert—
8 In section 262(6) (orders and regulations subject to affirmative procedure) before paragraph(ab) insert—
“(aab) regulations under section ZA5;”
9 Before Schedule 1 insert—
“Schedule A1
the Institute for Apprenticeships
Status
1 The IfA is to perform its functions on behalf of the Crown.
Membership
2 (1) The IfA is to consist of—
(a) a member appointed by the Secretary of State to chair the IfA (“the chair”);
(b) the chief executive appointed in accordance with paragraph 5;
(c) at least 4 and no more than 10 other members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) The chair and members appointed under sub-paragraph (1)(c) are referred to in this Schedule as the “non-executive members”.
Tenure of non-executive members
3 (1) The non-executive members hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointment.
(2) Those terms are to be determined by the Secretary of State, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule.
(3) A non-executive member must not be appointed for a term of more than five years.
(4) A non-executive member may resign from office at any time by giving written notice to the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State may remove a non-executive member from office on either of the following grounds—
(a) inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of office;
(b) absence from the IfA’s meetings for a continuous period of more than 6 months without the IfA’s permission.
(6) The previous appointment of a person as a non-executive member does not affect the person’s eligibility for re-appointment.
Remuneration of non-executive members
4 (1) The IfA must, if the Secretary of State requires it to do so, pay remuneration, allowances and expenses to its non-executive members.
(2) The IfA must, if the Secretary of State requires it to do so, pay, or make provision for the payment of, a pension, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of a person who is or has been a non-executive member.
(3) If a person ceases to be a non-executive member of the IfA and the Secretary of State decides that the person should be compensated because of special circumstances, the IfA must pay compensation to the person.
(4) The amount of a payment under sub-paragraph (1), (2) or (3) is to be determined by the Secretary of State.
(5) Service as a non-executive member is one of the kinds of service to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation schemes as respects civil servants etc) can apply (see Schedule 1 to that Act).
(6) The IfA must pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as the Minister may direct, such sums as the Minister may determine in respect of any increase attributable to the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 payable to or in respect of non-executive members in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.
Chief executive and other staff
5 (1) The first chief executive is to be appointed by the Secretary of State on conditions of service determined by the Secretary of State, after consulting the chair.
(2) Subsequent chief executives are to be appointed by the IfA after consulting the Secretary of State.
(3) The chief executive must not be appointed for a term of more than five years.
(4) The previous appointment of a person as chief executive does not affect the person’s eligibility for re-appointment.
(5) The chief executive holds that office as a member of staff of the IfA.
(6) The IfA may appoint other members of staff.
(7) Service as a member of staff of the IfA is employment in the civil service of the State.
(8) The following are to be determined by the IfA with the approval of the Secretary of State—
(a) the number of members of staff of the IfA (in addition to the chief executive);
(b) the conditions of service of staff of the IfA.
(9) Sub-paragraph (8)(b) is subject to sub-paragraph (1).
Arrangements with Secretary of State
6 The Secretary of State and the IfA may enter into arrangements with each other for the provision to the IfA by the Secretary of State, on such terms as may be agreed, of staff, accommodation or services.
Committees
7 (1) The IfA may establish committees, and any committee established by the IfA may establish sub-committees.
(2) The IfA may—
(a) dissolve a sub-committee established under sub-paragraph (1), or
(b) alter the purposes for which such a sub-committee is established.
(3) In this Schedule a committee or sub-committee established under sub-paragraph (1) is referred to as an “IfA committee”.
(4) An IfA committee must include at least two persons who are members of the IfA or its staff.
(5) The IfA may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, arrange for the payment of remuneration, allowances and expenses to any person who—
(a) is a member of an IfA committee, but
(b) is not a member of the IfA or its staff.
(6) The IfA must, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State, review—
(a) the structure of IfA committees, and
(b) the scope of the activities of each IfA committee.
Procedure
8 (1) The IfA may regulate—
(a) its own proceedings (including quorum), and
(b) the procedure (including quorum) of IfA committees.
(2) The validity of proceedings of the IfA, or of an IfA committee, is not affected by—
(a) a vacancy;
(b) a defective appointment.
Exercise of functions
9 (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), the IfA may authorise any of the following to exercise functions on its behalf—
(a) a member of the IfA;
(b) a member of the IfA’s staff;
(c) an IfA committee;
(d) any other person.
(2) The IfA may not authorise any of the functions under sections A2, A2A and A2E to A2I to be exercised on its behalf—
(a) under sub-paragraph (1)(c), by a committee a majority of the members of which are not members of the IfA’s staff, or
(b) under sub-paragraph (1)(d).
(3) The IfA may authorise the exercise on its behalf of functions that have been—
(a) delegated to the IfA by directions under section ZA4, or
(b) conferred on the IfA by regulations under section ZA5,
only if and to the extent that the directions or regulations so provide.
Supplementary powers
10 (1) The IfA may—
(a) provide information or advice to any person in connection with any of the IfA’s functions;
(b) co-operate or work jointly with any person where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective performance of any of the IfA’s functions;
(c) carry out research for the purposes of, or in connection with, the IfA’s functions;
(d) do anything else that the IfA considers necessary or appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, its functions.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1)(d) is subject to any restrictions imposed by or under any provision of any Act.
(3) The IfA may not borrow money.
(4) The IfA may not, without the consent of the Secretary of State—
(a) lend money,
(b) form, participate in forming or invest in a company, or
(c) form, participate in forming or otherwise become a member of a charitable incorporated organisation (within the meaning of section 69A of the Charities Act 1993).
(5) In sub-paragraph (4) the reference to investing in a company includes a reference to becoming a member of the company and to investing in it by the acquisition of any assets, securities or rights or otherwise.
Accounts and reports
11 (1) The IfA must—
(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to its accounts, and
(b) prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts.
(2) Each statement of accounts must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State as to—
(a) the information to be contained in it,
(b) the manner in which such information is to be presented, or
(c) the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(3) The IfA must send a copy of each statement of accounts to—
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) the Comptroller and Auditor General,
before the end of the month of August following the financial year to which the statement relates.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—
(a) examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts, and
(b) send a copy of each report and certified statement to the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) a copy of each statement sent to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (3), and
(b) a copy of each report and certified statement sent to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (4).
(6) “Financial year” has the meaning given by section ZA6(6) (annual and other reports).
Application of seal and proof of documents
12 (1) The application of the IfA’s seal must be authenticated by the signature of—
(a) the chief executive, or
(b) a member of the IfA who has been authorised by the IfA for that purpose (whether generally or specifically).
(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the IfA’s seal, or signed on its behalf—
(a) is to be received in evidence, and
(b) is to be treated as executed or signed in that way, unless the contrary is proved.
Funding
13 (1) The Secretary of State may make grants to the IfA, or provide the IfA with any other kind of financial assistance, subject to any conditions that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) The conditions may, in particular—
(a) enable the Secretary of State to require full or partial repayment of sums paid by the Secretary of State if any of the conditions are not complied with;
(b) require the payment of interest in respect of any period during which a sum due to the Secretary of State in accordance with any of the conditions remains unpaid.”
10 In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972, in the list of “Offices”, at the appropriate place insert—“Non-executive member of the Institute for Apprenticeships.”
11 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities) at the appropriate place insert—
“The Institute for Apprenticeships.” —(Anna Soubry.)
This new Schedule establishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and makes provision about its functions.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clauses 36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Commencement
Amendment made: 76, in clause 38, page 54, line 29, at end insert—
“() section (Extended Sunday opening hours and Sunday working)(5), and Schedule (Sunday working hours: rights of shop workers) (Sunday working hours: rights of shop workers), for the purpose of enabling the exercise of any power to make regulations under any provision of the Employment Rights Act 1996 inserted by that Schedule;” —(Anna Soubry.)
This amendment provides for the power to make regulations under sections 41A to 41C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to come into force on Royal Assent. These provisions confer powers to make regulations about the meaning of “normal Sunday working hours” and the form and content of explanatory statements.
Anna Soubry
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 38, page 54, line 30, at end insert—
“() paragraph 2 of Schedule2 (things to be included in Secretary of State’s report in respect of the business impact target), and section14 (which introduces Schedule 2) so far as relating to that paragraph;”
This amendment provides for paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to come into force on Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 20, 21 and 22.
Anna Soubry
In short, amendments 19 and 20 allow earlier commencement of changes to the Secretary of State’s reporting duties under the business impact target. Amendment 21 will allow the funding power of UK Government Investments to be brought into effect by Treasury regulations.
Amendments 19 and 20 will ensure that the streamlined business impact target reporting requirements will take effect in time for the first annual report in June of this year. Amendment 21 affects clause 29, which is on the funding power for UK Government Investments—to be known as UKGI—and is currently commenced by the Secretary of State. As the Treasury has no Secretary of State, this is a technical amendment that will allow the Treasury to bring clause 29 into effect by making regulations.
Amendment 22 is a minor, technical amendment to clarify clause 38 and does not affect the substance of the Bill.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Amendments made: 20, in clause 38, page 54, line 44, at end insert
“(so far as not already in force under subsection (1)).”
This clarifying amendment acknowledges that although Schedule 2 is generally to come into force 2 months after Royal Assent, one of its provisions (paragraph 2) will come into force on Royal Assent under subsection (1) of the clause (see amendment 19).
Amendment 21, in clause 38, page 55, line 4, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) The following provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Treasury may by regulations appoint—
(a) section 29 (UK Government Investments Limited);
(b) section 35 and Schedule 4 (restriction on public sector exit payments).”
This amendment provides for clause 29 to come into force by regulations made by the Treasury (instead of by regulations made by the Secretary of State).
Amendment 22, in clause 38, page 55, line 6, leave out “The remaining” and insert
“Subject to subsections (1) to (4), the” —(Anna Soubry.)
This clarifying amendment acknowledges that provisions that are to come into force by regulations under subsection (5) of clause 38 may already have come into force for particular purposes under preceding provisions of the clause.
Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Extent
Amendments made: 23, in clause 39, page 55, line 15, leave out “and 15” and insert “, 15 and 18 to 21”
This amendment is made for drafting consistency. It ensures that the extent of paragraphs 18 to 21 of Schedule 1 is governed by clause 39(4), which provides for an amendment to have the same extent as the enactment amended. The enactments amended by those paragraphs extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so the clause’s effect is not changed.
Amendment 24, in clause 39, page 55, line 16, at end insert—
“() subsections (5) to (9) of section14 (application of changes relating to the business impact target in relation to the relevant period in which they come into force);”
This amendment clarifies that subsections (5) to (9) of section 14 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Amendment 25, in clause 39, page 55, line 16, at end insert—
“() section (Apprenticeships: information sharing) (apprenticeships: information sharing);”
This amendment provides for NC3 to have UK wide extent.
Amendment 26, in clause 39, page 55, line 17, leave out “Part 5” and insert “sections 22 and 23”
This amendment clarifies that the extent of clause 24 (which amends the Limitation Act 1980) is governed by section 39(4) (which means that it extends to England and Wales), unlike the other provisions of Part 5 (sections 22 and 23) which extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Amendment 27, in clause 39, page 55, line 25, leave out subsection (2)
This amendment is made for drafting consistency. It removes subsection (2) of clause 39, which is not needed because the same effect is achieved by the general provision in subsection (4) of the clause.
Amendment 94, in clause 39, page 55, line 28, at end insert—
‘( ) Section (The Institute for Apprenticeships: transitional provision) extends to England and Wales.”
This amendment provides for NC23 containing transitional provision relating to the Institute for Apprenticeships to extend to England and Wales.
Amendment 28, in clause 39, page 55, line 29, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (1),” —(Anna Soubry.)
This clarifying amendment acknowledges that the extent of certain amendments of enactments made by the Bill is provided for by subsection (1).
Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Short Title
Anna Soubry
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 40, page 55, line 33, leave out subsection (2)
This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
The amendment deals with the title of the Act and is very short. I am sure that it will not be controversial.
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Title
Amendment made: 77, in title, line 1, at end insert
“provision about Sunday opening hours and Sunday working;”—(Anna Soubry.)
This amendment amends the long title of the Bill so as to include a reference to the provisions about Sunday opening hours and rights to opt out of Sunday working, as provided for by NC21 and NS2.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Sir David. As we have now reached, in good time, as we always were going to, the point where we wrap up the Committee proceedings, I thought I should take the opportunity to thank you and your co-Chair, Ms Buck, for the excellent way in which you have chaired our proceedings and kept us all in order. Even though we attempted to wander off the path on occasion, you quite rightly led us back on to it, for which we are very grateful. I hope that you will pass that on to Ms Buck.
I thank the Clerks of the Committee, the Doorkeepers, the police, the civil servants and the Hansard reporters. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the Ministers for the courteous way in which they have conducted proceedings and for responding to our questions most of the time. I also thank Government Members for their contributions, which have enhanced our debates. It is important that Members take the opportunity to participate in Committee.
I thank those members of the public who have attended and watched proceedings, and I thank the Whips for their help—
Kevin Brennan
As a former Government Whip, I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend, but there is a certain freemasonry of the Whips that always stays with one. I once had lunch with the former deputy Chief Whip of the Conservative Government, Sir Bernard Weatherill, who was also Speaker of the House. He told me that we could not have civilisation without sewers and we could not have Parliament without the Whips. I say to the Government Whip that both should remain pretty much underground for pretty much the same reason. Although he has wanted to contribute to our debates from time to time, there are very good reasons why he should remain silent.
I thank our staff who helped us to prepare. Having served on both sides of a Committee, I can say that debating a Bill in opposition is the parliamentary equivalent of digging a ditch: you work very hard down in a hole, sometimes not really making much progress, and nobody can see you. I am relieved, if I can put it that way, that we have reached the end of this stage of the Bill, but I thank our staff, meagre as they are, as well as the volunteers and others who have helped us to prepare for the Committee.
I thank our friends from the Scottish National party for their contributions, and I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions, because they have been absolutely fantastic. On that basis, I commend the Bill as it goes off to Report. We will have a lot more to say at that stage on many of the issues we have discussed.
Hannah Bardell
Further to that point of order, Sir David, I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff West and thank all the Clerks and staff and yourself and Ms Buck. This is the second Bill Committee that I have been part of, but it is the first for my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and I know I speak on his behalf when I say that it has been a largely enjoyable experience.
Hannah Bardell
Perhaps I am misspeaking.
We are disappointed that more amendments were not accepted, but it has certainly been interesting and engaging and, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West says, I am sure that there will be extensive debate when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. I thank you again, Sir David, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend.
Anna Soubry
Further to that point of order, I add my thanks for your chairmanship, Sir David, and for that of Ms Buck. It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I should put it on record that the first time I ever sat on a Public Bill Committee was to consider what became the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It took me quite a long time to recover from it; it was one of the longest-lasting Committees ever to sit in this place. I say that for the benefit of new hon. Members—you have had it very easy. That Committee took a long time and, Sir David, as you might remember, there was quite a long pause—as the Government called it—and then we all had to come back. It seemed to go on for ever.
This has been a very good Bill Committee. I know that the hon. Member for Livingston is a little disappointed that some of the amendments have not been accepted, but I think it is fair to say that there has been more agreement than there has been disagreement, which is certainly to be welcomed.
I thank all the Clerks and staff, and the staff of a number of Departments who have helped me prepare for my contributions. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, a fellow Minister but at the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is always good to work with him. A feature of this Government—we were laughing privately about this, something that people perhaps do not understand—is that Ministers all like each other, get on terribly well and are genuinely friends. We do not need to go into more detail, because there are others I need to thank.
I thank the Doorkeepers. They have been lucky, because we have not had too many Divisions. They have kept us safe and we are grateful for them.
Finally, I thank all hon. Members, including the Whips—rightly, because people do not realise the job that the Whips do, which is to keep things moving smoothly. I pay tribute to my PPS, who has been struck down by a vile lurgy. He sat here for almost the entire day, only to discover that he was not required to vote, so he has gone home to his bed, properly so. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood, who I think is engaging in his first PPS duties. We look forward to many more such instances—a gentle hint to the Whip.
The Committee has been enjoyable and, although I do not know whether it is a first, we have actually finished early. We cannot all go home, but we can certainly all go and have a cup of tea. Thank you, Sir David, it has been a pleasure. We look forward to Report stage and to the many further debates on the Bill as it passes through the House.
The Chair
Ms Buck and I have greatly enjoyed the Committee. Members have at all times been courteous and our debates have been conducted with great humour. I thank colleagues for the way in which they have co-operated with the Chair at all times.
I thank the Doorkeepers and the Hansard writers for their support for our work, but most of all I wish to thank our Clerks, without whom the Committee would not have functioned. Their wise counsels have prevailed at all times.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Welcome back for the penultimate sitting of the Committee.
Clause 35
Restriction on public sector exit payments
Amendment proposed (23 February): 103, in clause 35, page 50, line 38, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations shall make provision to require prescribed public sector authorities to consider, prior to making a public sector exit payment—
(a) whether the payment being paid is appropriate; and
(b) whether the payment would provide value for money.” .—(Kevin Brennan.)
This amendment would ensure that when considering staff for exits value for money is considered.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Buck. I think that we had come to the point in the debate on the amendment where all that was left was for me to respond. The amendment is unnecessary because it is already a fundamental duty for the public sector to ensure that exit payments are value for money and are made in the most appropriate manner. The cap on and the additional scrutiny of such payments will encourage employers to act with discipline and proportionality when considering public sector exits and will help to ensure that good management practices are embedded in any decision. It is on that basis that I ask hon. Members to vote against the amendment if it is put to a vote.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Ms Buck, as this will be your last opportunity to chair this Committee in your first venture into chairmanship, may I say how greatly we have enjoyed your chairmanship of the Committee here, down by the river? I know you have just got your Bruce Springsteen tickets so I thought I would mention that.
Kevin Brennan
Although we have also hugely enjoyed Sir David’s chairmanship, as Sinead O’Connor once sang, “Nothing compares to you”. [Interruption.] I am showing my age, as the Minister quite rightly says.
Amendment 103 is a probing amendment that makes an important point about value for money. As I said on Tuesday, we are not convinced that the clause will ultimately bring value for money in the public sector or, indeed, among some workers in the private sector. We want to discuss that point, which is coming up next. On that basis, I will not ask my hon. Friends to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kevin Brennan
I beg to move amendment 123, in clause 35, page 51, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert—
‘(10) Nothing in this section applies in relation to payments made by the bodies listed in NS3.”
This amendment would exclude employees of companies listed at NS3 operated by the private sector from the scope of the proposed cap.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 3—Bodies excluded from the restrictions on public sector exit payments—
“Payments made by the following bodies are excluded from the restrictions on public sector exit payments—
(a) Sellafield Ltd
(b) Westinghouse Springfields Fuels Ltd
(c) Magnox Ltd
(d) National Nuclear Laboratory
(e) International Nuclear Services
(f) Atomic Weapons Establishment Ltd
(g) Low Level Waste Repository Ltd
(h) Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd
(i) RSRL Winfrith and
(j) RSRL Harwell ”
See amendment 123.
Kevin Brennan
I congratulate Government Members on voting in the way they intended on that occasion.
Amendment 123 would exclude employees of the companies listed in new schedule 3, which are operated by the private sector, from the scope of the cap proposed in clause 35. Employees of Magnox and similar companies across the nuclear estate and elsewhere are employed by companies that operate in the private sector, so why are they being included in and affected by a measure that the Secretary of State told us on Second Reading is designed to hit public sector fat cats? Those employees never imagined for one second—one can understand why—that they were covered by the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment to cap public sector exit payments.
We raised that issue on Second Reading, and I know the Minister has subsequently met with Members of Parliament to discuss it further. Hopefully, by the end of the debate, we will have a solution and those employees will be excluded from the exit payment cap. These companies are in a unique position: they are mostly engaged in managing the safe closure of nuclear facilities, which is obviously a hugely important task for our country.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent terrible and tragic explosion at Didcot shows just how difficult and dangerous such decommissioning work is? That was a conventional gas-fired power station being demolished. I am sure the sympathies and thoughts of the whole Committee are with those affected and their families. The terrible tragedy that befell workers there shows what a difficult, dangerous and technical job they are doing. A great deal of specialist expertise is required to do it safely. Of course, the risks of a nuclear decommissioning site are exponentially increased because of the risk of anything escaping out into the wider environment.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is right. Exclusions have been made for those who serve our country, and I think these workers also serve our country in what they do—which is, as she said, difficult, technical and sometimes dangerous work.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for the argument he is making in support of Magnox workers. Those workers include a constituent of mine, who rightly pointed out not only that she was extremely shocked to find herself included in these redundancy terms but that, if we change people’s terms and conditions at this stage, the industry is very much threatened by losing the vital skills we need to do this decommissioning work.
Kevin Brennan
I said earlier in the Committee that Government Whips should be seen but not heard, but of course that convention does not apply to Opposition Whips in Committee, as all Committee members will know. That is particularly useful, as it allows my hon. Friend to raise a constituency issue of such direct importance to what is under discussion. I am sure her constituents will take note of what she is doing in the Committee to defend their interests.
As I said, these companies are in a unique position. They are mostly engaged in managing the safe closure of nuclear facilities, which is a hugely important task that is very difficult to manage. By its nature, it involves working towards a specific end date, at which point the employees will in effect make themselves redundant. They are in a particularly different category. To get someone with the necessary skills to commit to that task when they are in, say, their early or mid-30s, we need to ensure that they know they will be provided for if they successfully complete their task by the time they reach their mid to late 50s, when finding re-employment in a similar role with their skills would be potentially very difficult.
As we have heard, if these companies cannot afford the packages necessary to compensate someone for the loss of their role when their task is completed, the companies will find it extremely difficult to prevent these highly skilled workers, who were mobile in earlier parts of their career, from simply leaving. That, in itself, will ultimately drive up the costs and risks associated with decommissioning and exacerbate an already difficult skills shortage in the industry.
Legislating now, as the Government are doing, to override long-standing arrangements in the nuclear sector where the employees involved have kept their end of the bargain faithfully, is pretty unconscionable in my opinion. How can it be right that workers who have stayed with a company to deliver successfully the safety commissioning of a site see their promised redundancy compensation reneged on by the Government when it is due to be paid?
The Treasury justification for applying the cap to the employees of those companies, as I understand it, is the old chestnut of the Office for National Statistics judging them to be publicly controlled. That technical, statistical designation, however, does not mean that applying the cap to those workers is either fair or necessarily value for money for taxpayers in the long term. It is unfair unilaterally to strike down agreements between companies and their employees. It will drive up overall costs for decommissioning as recruitment and retention in the relevant sectors take a hit. There is also no proof that taxpayers will receive any benefit, as the private operators of the companies often receive higher incentive payments under their contracts as a result.
Unless the Government decide to act on this, and I hope they do, employees in the sector will note that when it comes to pension provision and other issues the Treasury has excluded them from the public sector, but it considers them within scope for the cap in the Bill. Proceeding with imposing the cap on the employees of those companies will store up significant industrial relations issues. One can only guess how they will feel —actually, we do not have to guess, because we know from the evidence that we have received, which I will come on to in a moment. How will they feel when they discover that the Secretary of State considers them to be fat cats requiring legislation to limit their payments, even though they are employed by the private sector, while the Government absolutely reject any limit on anyone working in the banking sector? Why is a privatised banker not given the fat-cat treatment by the Secretary of State, but nuclear decommissioning workers are? Yet again it seems to be up with the bankers and down with the workers with this Government. What a shocking value-free zone the policy is, if the Government stick to it and do not accept that they have got it wrong and should support our amendment.
We have received strong representations from Magnox workers and from the trade unions that have represented them so ably. Other companies in the sector are covered and they are referred to in new schedule 3. For the record and for the sake of inclusivity in my remarks I will name those included in the new schedule: Sellafield Ltd, Westinghouse Springfields Fuels Ltd, Magnox Ltd, National Nuclear Laboratory, International Nuclear Services, Atomic Weapons Establishment Ltd, Low Level Waste Repository Ltd, Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd, RSRL Winfrith and RSRL Harwell. Note that none of those companies is called Fat Cats Ltd.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend made a good point earlier comparing the workers and the bankers. Does he agree that the list he has just read out is an interesting hangover from the privatisation of the electricity grid and the national nuclear authority? Some risks can only be borne by Government. One of those risks is the premature exit of a skilled, competent workforce equipped to deal with nuclear materials and their safe disposal. There are strong arguments for the Government to continue to bear the redundancy risk, or to allow the workers to be classified—I am not sure whether they are classified as being state or private sector workers, but the point is, when we privatise things, some risks only Government can bear, and that is what the amendment is all about.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that that is why those companies fall in scope, but that does not stop the Government from deciding actively to exclude them from scope. As I said earlier, they are radiant with the lawful power to do that; we are not, but they can do it. I encourage the Minister to commit to doing so in her response.
The Committee has formally received dozens of letters from Magnox workers. I have some here and I am sure hon. Members have read them. I congratulate the workers on the quality of representations they have made to the Committee as well as the trade unions. Kevin Coyne of Unite, whom I met, has co-ordinated joint union meetings to campaign on the issue. We are reaching the last stages of the Committee so there is not time to read all of the letters out, but they have been entered formally as evidence to the Committee, so they are available for people to read.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I thought the hon. Member for Cardiff West set out the logic behind the amendment very well and I agree with all the comments he made. As he said, we have all received representations on this issue; in fact, there was the feel of a 38 Degrees campaign at one point, but that showed the strength of feeling. These are workers who are getting hurt by the law of unintended consequences again.
As has been said, it is middle-income workers—long-serving workers—who are encouraged to stay on site, in a privatised company, to remain there and do this very important work of decommissioning, which obviously has an end date that signifies the end of their work. So it is only right that they should be able to pick up the pension accrual that they expected to get.
If we look back in history, we see that this is about Government striking a commercial deal to privatise a company. The company knows the workload that it is going to get, so it knows its commercial return. Years down the line, these workers should not be the victim of a Government change in policy, when, in fact, the company has managed to pick up the profit it was due over the years. That is very important.
These workers have not had a say in this process. They probably did not want to be privatised in the first place and they should not have their terms and conditions changed further down the line. I certainly support the amendment.
Anna Soubry
We need to remind ourselves, of course, that the Government have been clear that ending six-figure payments should apply to all public sector organisations, with few exceptions. Of course, it is the taxpayer who picks up the cost of exit payments and employees who have specialist skills should not automatically be exempt.
I was a little troubled by the contribution from the hon. Member for Wakefield, and not because I disagreed with her for one moment about the dreadful accident the day before yesterday at Didcot and the subsequent fatalities. It is undoubtedly the case that many people do dangerous jobs. I am reminded, of course, of all those who work in the fire and rescue service; we often forget that the fire brigades provide the rescue service as well. They do incredibly dangerous work, not only when they are fighting fires but when they are rescuing people. Although it is extremely rare, if it ever happens, that we make firefighters redundant, nevertheless they are also included in this new provision. I do not think that the fact that someone does a dangerous job should in some way exempt them.
The list of exempt organisations will be set out in the regulations, not in the Bill itself, and of course they will need the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The guidance accompanying the regulations will set down the criteria that Ministers, or those who have been delegated the responsibility, must consider in decisions to relax the cap. In other words, there are exemptions that can be made, but they will be determined in a list that, as I say, will require the approval of both Houses.
Regulations relaxing the cap can apply to individual cases and to groups of individuals, to cater for cases where Ministers may wish to consider organisational cases for relaxing the cap. So there is already a mechanism in place for organisations to be considered for exemption. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
The regulations implementing the cap will be in force from October 2016 at the very earliest. However, as I think I have explained—it has certainly been explained in correspondence, but now I will make it very clear again—Magnox employees who are in the current redundancy programme and due to exit by September 2016 will not—repeat, will not—be caught by the cap, and the cap will not affect the core terms of the pension scheme available to Nuclear Decommissioning Authority staff, in other words Magnox employees, such as the retirement age or the basis on which their pensions accrual rate is set.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West used a particular example, of course, from somebody who had quite properly written in, which is absolutely the right thing to do. In relation to that point, I will say that I have indeed had meetings with MPs. I have not met the unions, not because I have any difficulty in meeting unions, but only because—unfortunately—my diary is pretty hectic.
However, I particularly made the point when I met the MPs, and I have made it clear to the unions by way of a letter, that people should please use their MPs to make full representations to me. As we all know, in this place Members can lobby a Minister in a corridor, or anywhere we bump into each other. That is the quickest and easiest way, but it is not a slight on the unions. I have specifically said to Members of Parliament, “Get back to them, and tell them about our meeting. Use your good self to communicate through.”
Anna Soubry
In just a moment. I have drifted off, and I want to come back to my point on Magnox pensions. These are employer-funded costs that form part of the exit payment, and the cap does not affect the core terms of the pensions. That is important, and everyone is beholden to ensure that employees get the facts, not the myths or the spin. The cap does not affect the core terms of their pensions, such as accrual rates and normal pension age. I hope that might be of some assistance.
Kevin Brennan
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central wanted to come in on a slightly earlier point. Has that point about myths been made in the representations that the Committee has received? I do not think that is the point we are trying to make with the amendment but, if the Minister thinks those myths are being pushed around, where are they coming from?
Anna Soubry
I am just answering the points that have been made.
I was asked why the banks are not included. There is a good reason for that. During the financial crisis, the then Government ensured that a number of banks were in temporary partial public ownership, and we have already started the process of returning the banks wholly—not partly, but wholly—to private ownership. That is the only reason why they are exempt.
The other important thing to remember—I am particularly explaining this for the Magnox workers—is that it is not the Government who deem that they are working in the public sector; it is the Office for National Statistics. As we debated the other day, the ONS is an independent organisation. It is not for the Government to beat up on the ONS, which decides and determines what is in and what is out of the public sector. By definition, that is the ONS’s job.
Mary Creagh
I apologise for the earlier interruption. I have a new app, and I thought I had it on mute, but for some reason it started talking. I recommend it to the Committee, because it is good for beating the London traffic.
The Minister has just said that partially owned state banks are exempt from the cap at the moment. Does that mean that their workers can receive payoffs of more than £100,000 before they are fully privatised? That is at least the next year or year and a half, given our earlier discussions on the current state of the banking share market.
Anna Soubry
That is my understanding, because they are in the process of being wholly put back into the private sector. If I am wrong, I am sure I will be corrected. And if I am not corrected in time, I will be more than happy to write to the hon. Lady.
Mary Creagh
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. Does that mean that those banks that are in partial public ownership publish, as the Green Investment Bank currently does, the pay and benefits of all their top executives and their chairperson? We had that debate in relation to the Green Investment Bank, and I seek clarification on the same best practice for financial reporting on executive pay and performance. If the Minister cannot provide an answer now, I would be grateful if she wrote to me on that point.
Anna Soubry
I really do not know. The danger is that we are drifting off. Again, I am more than happy to ask my officials to write to the hon. Lady on that point. [Interruption.] Actually, the publication of what people earn, and so on, is not relevant to this clause.
I know that Opposition Members want to concentrate on the issue of the Magnox workers because, understandably, they have written in large numbers to hon. Members. As I have explained, we have been clear about what to do, but in any event we will list in regulation those employees who are not exempt. I also stress the point that the cap of £95,000 is on exit payments. We are not getting rid of all exit payments for Magnox workers, but those who would receive above £95,000 will be capped.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister tells us that secondary legislation will list the organisations and people who will be exempted from the cap. As we know, the Government have decided to exempt certain people in the public sector from the cap. Will any or all of the bodies listed in new schedule 3 be included in the list in secondary legislation?
Anna Soubry
I do not think I can give assurances on that. If I am wrong, I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. Forgive me, Ms Buck, I am reading a note that I do not understand. It refers to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), although I did not think she was here. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wakefield has been mistaken for the hon. Member for Walthamstow.
Anna Soubry
Yes, I was going to say that. I nearly said she is also much younger, but that would be exceedingly rude. Actually, it is not true. In any event, the hon. Lady looks the same age.
Anna Soubry
Well off it. But I do not like falling out with people. Unless anyone wants to intervene, that is all I have to say on this matter.
Bill Esterson
I want to make a few remarks as the Minister did not allow me to intervene earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made a point about consistency and the treatment of workers, whether they are senior bank executives or Magnox workers. Reasonable people might expect similar and decent treatment from the Government, whether they work in a bank, in decommissioning in the nuclear industry, or anywhere else. That is the grave concern about some of what we have heard and about the clauses tabled by the Government, which we want to amend. I tried to intervene on the Minister’s comments on trade unions. I do not doubt her desire to engage with trade unions or her understanding of the importance of talking to the trade unions.
The Minister is right that constituency MPs have a crucial role in discussing with Ministers the impact of legislation on their constituents. Workers in the nuclear industry who are extremely worried, with good reason, about the proposals in the Bill are rightly being represented by their Members of Parliament and by members of the Committee. Indeed, representations were made on Second Reading and will be made on Report in two weeks’ time. The Minister made comments about the pressures on her diary, but I gently say to her that partnership between Government, business and the workforce, especially through its trade union representation, is a hallmark of successful economies.
As success comes in large part from the relationship between the Government and the trade unions, in order to do the Magnox workers justice, the Minister should have made it a priority to meet their trade union before we got to this point in Committee. It is a great pity that she did not.
Kevin Brennan
I thought the Minister’s response was disappointing, given the weight of the evidence submitted to the Committee and the strength of feeling among hon. Members and their constituents. The workers have made their plans and taken decisions on the basis of guarantees and promises given by Government. As far as we can surmise from the limited information that the Minister is prepared to provide about the Government’s intentions, it now appears that the Government are going to take action that will affect them.
To listen to the Minister, one might think that the workers would not be affected at all. She seemed to be dealing with all sorts of shibboleths that were nothing to do with what is in the new schedule, rather than telling us directly whether the workers’ pensions and prospects would be affected by the exit payment cap. The Minister rehearsed arguments about all sorts of scares, which may have been put about by mythical people she was not prepared to name, but going by the evidence submitted to us, the workers in question will be affected—and to quite a large extent.
We represented those arguments and made the case on the workers’ behalf, and quoted, albeit selectively, from a heavy weight of evidence that they submitted to us about their circumstances. All we got from the Minister was a response to issues that had not been raised in the workers’ letters to us and a vague reference to secondary legislation at some later date that will name some as yet unknown entities that may be excluded from the cap.
I am sorry, but I was brought up not to buy a pig in a poke, and if I were the Magnox workers I would not fall for that for a second. It is the oldest trick in the book for Ministers to say “We might do something at a later date, but let something through in the meantime.” That is not why we are here. We are here to get on the record the Government’s position, and whether they accept the arguments about Magnox and other workers that we have set out in the new schedule. We want to know whether they are prepared to exclude those workers, through secondary legislation, from the exit payment cap. At the very least, will they give a strong indication that that is how they are minded to act?
All we got from the Minister was an empty sheet of paper, with nothing written on it. I am afraid that is not good enough for the constituents who have written to us and who are directly affected.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. I want to express my concerns about the issue. It speaks to what seems to be a wider Government issue on pensions. We had a debate yesterday about women born in the 1950s who have been significantly affected by the Government’s switching the goal posts. The Government are pulling the rug out from under people. People have paid into the system and saved all their lives for their pension, only to find that the Government have changed the rules at the last minute. That suggests a profound disrespect for those people, but also for the principle of saving and doing the right thing. The Government profess to support those people, but they are doing the opposite.
Kevin Brennan
Indeed. Those people are the definition of strivers; they are hard-working—the beating heart of the working people of this country. It shows in their letters to us. Neither are they swivel-eyed lefty loonies or anything of that kind. Their letters reveal that they are ordinary working people. Often they live in the constituencies of Conservative Members. The one I quoted earlier lives in Maldon, the constituency of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and there are many others in constituencies represented by Members from both sides of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom.
Mary Creagh
I do not know how many of those workers cast votes for the Conservatives in the election, but had they been apprised of the facts before the election obviously they might have chosen to vote differently in some of the marginal seats mentioned by my hon. Friend. Also, one of the letters that I have received mentions that the impact assessment says that this course of action will save in the low hundreds of millions of pounds over this Parliament. The woman who wrote the letter contrasts that with the £130 million of back tax that has been paid by Google, which is under the spotlight again, given the news that the French Government are asking for £1.3 billion of back taxes from that company.
Alan Brown
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Minister’s disappointing response. Does he agree with me that one aspect of that response was that firefighters would be affected by the provision on exit payments? Is that not an illustration of what is wrong with this whole premise? They are anything but fat cats.
Kevin Brennan
It is. In fairness to the Minister, I do not think that she was saying that they were, but that is the language that the Secretary of State has used and that is the headline that they seek with this kind of policy making by headline. They put things in the Bill that are meant to get them a headline in the Daily Mail and The Sun. That is what it is all about, fundamentally. It is all about political positioning: “We are against these public sector fat cats.” But the reality, when we lift the stone and look underneath that proposition, is that some pretty ugly stuff is wriggling around underneath the stone. There is an example of that in the debate that we are having today. Hard-working people are being betrayed by their Government. They would have made very different assumptions, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, about what this policy meant when they read their Daily Mail and read the headline and even when they read the Conservative party manifesto, because—
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some Magnox workers apparently can receive up to half a million pounds? Is he saying that there should be no cap at all on any of the exit payments for Magnox workers? We want to be clear.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister is yet again quoting from a document that none of us has seen. She comes up with these little flights of inspiration to us that the rest of us have not read. I have been quoting from the evidence that has been submitted to the Committee. The Government could put in their explanatory notes to the Bill the fact that they are going after Magnox because of the fat cats that the Minister is saying—
Kevin Brennan
Well, the Secretary of State used the term, and the Secretary of State is the Minister’s senior and I presume she agrees with what he says. She is constitutionally obliged to, actually, when she is talking on behalf of the Department.
Mary Creagh
Let me attempt to help the Committee. I am sure that the Minister meant, when she referred to payments of up to half a million pounds, that some of those will be making up the pension requirements. Let us say that somebody is made redundant at 50. Their contract states that they can have their pension made up as if they had worked until the state retirement age, which is 65. We are talking about 13 years of pension fund payments on a salary of, I think, £30,000 a year. Thirteen years of payment would amount to £156,000. That is not going into that person’s pocket; it is going into their pension fund, and they have planned for that in order to help to pay their mortgage and to help them save towards their retirement.
Kevin Brennan
Indeed. All their life decisions were taken on the basis that they had a good pension fund that they were paying into and that they could expect, under the terms and conditions, to receive. That was contractually promised and, at the time of privatisation, commitments were made and guarantees were given that these people going into the private sector would not be affected in the way they are now being affected. The Government are hiding behind the veil of the argument that the ONS has classed them as public sector. That is irrelevant because the Government have the authority to exclude them if they accept the argument put forward by the Magnox workers.
I know that the Minister has expressed some sympathy—that is why I was quite surprised at her last intervention—privately in relation to Magnox workers. [Interruption.] That has been reported to me. I should explain. I will put it on the record, then. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) told me that in the meeting that he and other Members from across the House had with her that she expressed some sympathy with the case that the workers were putting forward. Nevertheless, she has come to the Committee with nothing for them today and no indication that on Report the Government will come back with something better than they have produced today, which is the square root of very little, to put it politely.
Kevin Brennan
I beg to move amendment 126, in schedule 4, page 68, line 6, after “reduction),” insert
“in (7) replace “is entitled to, and must take immediate payment of” with “may elect to receive immediate payment of” and”.
The amendment would give an individual the choice to take a pension immediately or delay taking it under the Local Government Pensions Scheme on being made redundant or because of business efficiency if under the exit payment cap such a payment would need to be actuarially reduced.
This is an important matter, but I hope we can dispose of it fairly quickly, obviously depending on hon. Members’ views. At the moment, local government pension scheme regulations state that, where an individual is made redundant at the age of 55 or over, they must take their pension. The pension that is payable to a member in that position is paid at the full rate and is not reduced to take into account that it will be paid for longer than if they had retired at a later age.
There may be a cost to the employer of putting the full pension into payment. Once the cap is introduced, if there is a cost to the employer of providing that unreduced pension and, taken together with the other exit payments, the cost would exceed £95,000, the Bill states that the pension should be paid at a reduced rate to ensure that the total cost does not go above the level of the cap. However, as drafted, the local government pension scheme regulations will still require that person to take their pension at the point of redundancy, and it will be a reduced pension for the remainder of their life, not just for the period until retirement.
The amendment proposes that members in that situation would have the choice of whether to take their pension. If, for example, a member is made redundant at the age of 55, they could either choose to take their pension at that point, accepting that it will be paid at a reduced rate for the rest of their life, or choose to delay taking their pension so that it can be put into payment at a later time on an unreduced basis. That seems an eminently sensible and reasonable proposition, and it is very much in line with what the Government say they want to do in extending choice to people in relation to their pension. There would not be a cost to the pension fund. The element of choice is crucial. The Minister believes in choice and we support that. A worker’s decision on when to access their pension really is a pretty basic right and choice. Will she extend that choice to these workers by agreeing to amendment 126?
Anna Soubry
Schedule 4 amends the local government pension scheme to allow for the payment of a reduced pension when the pension top-up by the employer required for an unreduced pension is to be taken early and would exceed £95,000. The provision is required to ensure that the scheme does not conflict with the requirements of the cap.
The amendment would allow for a member, instead of taking a reduced pension earlier, to opt to defer payment of their pension and take an unreduced pension at normal pension age. However, it is unclear how the amendment would be advantageous to the member, as they would be forfeiting up to £95,000 of top-up by their employer to their pension pot.
In any event, the amendments in schedule 4 make the minimum of changes for the cap to be effective. Any further amendments to the local government scheme should be made after consultation with members in the normal manner. For the sake of completeness, I want to say that the cap does not affect any pension already accrued or paid for by members’ contributions, even when taken out. That is why I resist the amendment.
Kevin Brennan
Obviously, I am disappointed by that reply. I had hoped that the Minister would say, “We’ll give it some more thought.” Whether she judges that it would be to the worker’s advantage or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It is about whether the worker, with appropriate financial advice, thinks it is the right choice for them. It is not for the Minister to decide whether it is the right choice for them. That is a very different definition of choice from the one we thought the Government meant when they were talking about choice regarding pensions.
I accept what the Minister said but I hope that she will think a bit more about it because this is not an unreasonable proposition, nor one that should affect any financial calculations that the Government might be concerned about in this part of the Bill. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
New Clause 1
Power of Welsh Ministers to apply regulators’ principles and code of practice
‘In section 24 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (application of regulators’ principles and code of practice to functions specified by order)—
(a) for paragraph (c) of subsection (3) (Wales: limit on power of Minister of the Crown to specify functions) substitute—
“(c) a Welsh regulatory function.”;
(b) in subsection (4) (power of Welsh Ministers to specify functions) for “regulatory functions exercisable only in or as regards Wales” substitute “Welsh regulatory functions”;
(c) in subsection (10) (definitions) at the appropriate place insert—
““Welsh regulatory function” means a regulatory function, so far as exercisable in relation to Wales, if or to the extent that the function relates to matters—
(a) within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales (see section 108 of the Government of Wales Act 2006), or
(b) in respect of which functions are exercisable by the Welsh Ministers.”.”’—(Anna Soubry.)
This new Clause gives power to the Welsh Ministers (instead of a Minister of the Crown) to make orders applying the regulators’ principles and code of practice in relation to functions relating to matters within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales, or in respect of which functions are exercisable by the Welsh Ministers.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Devolved Welsh matters
‘(1) The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In each of the following provisions, for “Welsh ministerial” substitute “devolved Welsh”—
(a) in section 4 (meaning of “relevant function”), subsections (6) and (8)(b);
(b) in section 6 (guidance to local authorities), subsections (1) and (1A);
(c) in section 10 (advice to Welsh Ministers), subsection (1)(a);
(d) in section 12 (relationship between Secretary of State and other regulators), subsection (3);
(e) in section 16 (guidance or directions by Welsh Ministers), subsection (1);
(f) in section 36 (power to make orders providing for civil sanctions), subsection (2);
(g) in section 59 (consultation and consent for civil sanctions orders: Wales), subsection (2);
(h) in section 73 (functions to which duty not to impose or maintain unnecessary regulatory burdens applies), subsections (3)(c), (4)(c) and (5).
(3) In section 73 (functions to which section 72 applies), in subsections (3)(c) and (4)(c), for “in Wales” substitute “in relation to Wales”.
(4) In section 74 (general interpretation)—
(a) omit the definition of “Welsh ministerial matter”;
(b) before the definition of “Minister of the Crown” insert—
““devolved Welsh matter” means —
(a) a matter within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales (see section 108 of the Government of Wales Act 2006), or
(b) a matter in relation to Wales in respect of which functions are exercisable by the Welsh Ministers,
and in this definition “Wales” has the same meaning as in the
Government of Wales Act 2006;”.”’—(Anna Soubry.)
See the explanatory statements for amendments 1 and 2.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Apprenticeships: information sharing
(1) After Part 1 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (apprenticeships, study and training) insert—
“Part 1A
Apprenticeships: information sharing
England
‘40A Sharing of information by HMRC and the Secretary of State
(1) HMRC may disclose information held by them to the Secretary of State for the purpose of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to English statutory apprenticeships.
(2) The Secretary of State may disclose information to HMRC—
(a) for the purpose of requesting HMRC to disclose information under subsection (1), or
(b) for another purpose connected with the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to English statutory apprenticeships.
(3) In this section “English statutory apprenticeships” means—
(a) approved English apprenticeships within the meaning given in section A1;
(b) apprenticeships undertaken under apprenticeship agreements within the meaning given in section 32 that were entered into in connection with recognised English frameworks;
(c) apprenticeships in relation to which alternative English completion arrangements apply under section 1(5);
(d) apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made in relation to England under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 that are identified by the person making them as arrangements for the provision of apprenticeships.
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
40B Sharing of information by HMRC and devolved authorities
(1) HMRC may disclose information held by them—
(a) to a Welsh authority for the purpose of the authority’s functions in relation to Welsh apprenticeships;
(b) to a Scottish authority for the purpose of the authority’s functions in relation to Scottish apprenticeships;
(c) to a Northern Irish authority for the purpose of the authority’s functions in relation to Northern Irish apprenticeships.
(2) An authority mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) may disclose information to HMRC—
(a) for the purpose of requesting HMRC to disclose information to the authority under subsection (1), or
(b) for another purpose connected with the authority’s functions mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) In this section—
“Northern Irish apprenticeships” means apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made under section 1 of the Employment and Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 that are identified by the person making them as arrangements for the provision of apprenticeships;
“Northern Irish authority” means—
(a) a Northern Ireland department, and
(b) any body or other person that is prescribed, or of a prescribed description;
“Scottish apprenticeships” means apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made—
(a) in relation to Scotland, under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973, or
(b) under section 2(3) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990, that are identified by the person making them as arrangements for the provision of apprenticeships;
“Scottish authority” means—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) any body or other person that is prescribed, or of a prescribed description;
“Welsh apprenticeships” means—
(a) apprenticeships undertaken under apprenticeship agreements within the meaning given in section 32 that were entered into in connection with recognised Welsh frameworks;
(b) apprenticeships in relation to which alternative Welsh completion arrangements apply under section 2(5);
(c) apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made in relation to Wales under—
“Welsh authority” means—
(a) the Welsh Ministers, and
(b) any body or other person that is prescribed, or of a prescribed description.
(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) the reference to a Northern Ireland department includes a reference to a person providing services to a Northern Ireland department;
(b) the reference to the Scottish Ministers includes a reference to a person providing services to the Scottish Ministers;
(c) the reference to the Welsh Ministers includes a reference to a person providing services to the Welsh Ministers.
(5) Regulations under this section may amend the definition in subsection (3) of—
(a) “Northern Irish apprenticeships”,
(b) “Scottish apprenticeships”, or
(c) “Welsh apprenticeships”.
General
40C Wrongful disclosure
(1) Information disclosed by HMRC under section 40A(1) or 40B(1) may not be disclosed by the recipient of the information to any other person without the consent of HMRC (except so far as permitted by section 40A(2) or 40B(2)).
(2) If a person discloses, in contravention of subsection (1), any revenue and customs information relating to a person whose identity—
(a) is specified in the disclosure, or
(b) can be deduced from it,
section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (wrongful disclosure) applies in relation to that disclosure as it applies in relation to a disclosure of such information in contravention of section 20(9) of that Act.
40D Interpretation
(1) In this Part—
“HMRC” means the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;
“revenue and customs information relating to a person” has the same meaning as in section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (see section 19(2) of that Act).
(2) In this Part—
(a) references to HMRC include references to a person providing services to HMRC;
(b) references to the Secretary of State include references to a person providing services to the Secretary of State.
(3) Nothing in this Part affects any power to disclose information that exists apart from this Part.”.
(2) In section 262(6) of that Act (orders and regulations subject to affirmative procedure) after paragraph (aa) insert—
“(aaa) regulations under section 40B;”.
(3) In section 268 of that Act (extent)—
(a) in subsection (2) (provisions extending to Scotland) for “Sections 40,” substitute “Section 40, Part 1A, sections”, and
(b) in subsection (3) (provisions extending to Northern Ireland) for “Sections”, in the first place, substitute “Part 1A, sections”.”’—(Anna Soubry.)
This new Clause inserts a new Part into the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 providing for the sharing of information between HMRC and the Secretary of State, and between HMRC and certain devolved authorities, for purposes connected with apprenticeships.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 4—Apprenticeship Funding.
Government amendment 25.
Anna Soubry
We are introducing the apprenticeship levy and the step change in apprenticeship numbers and quality to deliver on the commitment of 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. We have set ourselves a high target and I am confident that we will achieve it especially when business fully appreciates—and I think it does—the huge importance of apprenticeships. When we ratchet up this work, everybody will play their part in making sure that we offer wonderful opportunities for earning and learning. The Government will legislate for powers to raise and collect the levy across the United Kingdom through the Finance Bill 2016, with the levy due to go live in April 2017.
For employers to get out at least what they put in, we need to know what they have put in in the first place. We want to do this in a way that minimises the administrative burden on businesses. Data sharing between HMRC and the Secretary of State for BIS is the most effective and most efficient way to do this. The legislation will enable information held by the Treasury on the employer’s levy to be shared, so that each employer’s entitlement to apprenticeship funding can broadly match levy payments made by employers.
Employers entitled to levy funds will be able to access the new digital apprenticeship service from April 2017, and over time the service will be expanded to cover all employers who take on apprentices. Each employer that has paid the levy will be able to see how much they have paid and therefore how much they have to spend in their levy account. That will help us to give employers a simple-to-use apprenticeship service that is clearly linked to their levy payments. We will publish details in due course about arrangements for employers not paying the levy.
Devolved Administrations will also have access to similar information to operate their own apprenticeship schemes. The legislation also creates a new funding power that will enable us to make levy-funded payments to employers across the full range of apprenticeships in England.
Kevin Brennan
We debated this matter extensively earlier in the Bill and we have not tabled amendments in this group, so I will make my remarks in relation to the next group in which we have tabled amendments. My remarks will be brief because we have debated this quite extensively and we made our positon clear. However, we want to hear an explanation of the Government amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 3 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Apprenticeship funding
In section 100(1A) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (provision of financial resources in connection with approved English apprenticeships)—
(a) for “approved English apprenticeships”, in both places, substitute “English statutory apprenticeships”, and
(b) after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) In this section “English statutory apprenticeship” has the same meaning as in section 40A (see subsection (3) of that section).”” .—(Anna Soubry.)
This new Clause expands the Secretary of State’s funding powers in relation to English apprenticeships.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill
New Clause 5
Market rent only option: rent assessments etc
In section 43 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (pubs code: market rent only option), in subsection (6)(b), after “in lieu of rent” insert “(whether or not it results in a proposal that the rent, or amount of money payable, should increase)”.”—(Anna Soubry.)
This new Clause is intended to replace Clause 33, inserted by opposition amendment in the Lords. The changes are intended to achieve what the Government understands is the intended effect of the Lords amendment, namely to ensure that the Pubs Code will require pub-owning businesses to offer tied pub tenants a market rent only option in connection with a rent assessment (including a rent assessment required at a scheduled rent review) whether the rent proposed is an increase, a decrease or is unchanged.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Reports on avoidance
In Part 4 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (the Pubs Code Adjudicator and the Pubs Code), after section 71 insert—
“71A Reports on avoidance
(1) The Adjudicator must report to the Secretary of State on cases of pub-owning businesses engaging in business practices which are, in the Adjudicator’s opinion, unfair business practices.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include recommendations as to—
(a) actions to be taken to prevent pub-owning businesses from engaging in the business practices reported on, and
(b) how to provide redress for tied pub tenants affected by those practices.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue a statement within three months of receiving a report under subsection (1) setting out—
(a) action which the Secretary of State intends to take to protect tied pub tenants affected by the business practices reported on, or
(b) if the Secretary of State does not intend to take such action, the reasoning for that decision.
(4) In this section “unfair business practice” means a business practice which—
(a) is engaged in by a pub-owning business at any time after the passing of this Act in order to avoid, to the detriment of tied pub tenants, the operation of provision made by or under this Part, and
(b) is unfair.””—(Anna Soubry.)
This new Clause is intended to replace Clause 34, inserted by opposition amendment in the Lords. The changes are intended to clarify the effect of the Lords amendment. Instead of containing freestanding provision, the new clause inserts provision into Part 4 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. There are small changes to the detail of the drafting, principally to clarify that it applies to all regulations made under Part 4 of the 2015 Act and that the Adjudicator can report on business practices engaged in after royal assent of that Act.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
The Institute for Apprenticeships
“Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships) establishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and makes provision about its functions.”—(Anna Soubry.)
This new Clause introduces NS2.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 23—The Institute for Apprenticeships: transitional provision.
Government new schedule 2—The Institute for Apprenticeships—
“The Institute for Apprenticeships
1 The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is amended as follows.
2 In Part 1 (apprenticeships, study and training) before Chapter A1 insert—
Chapter ZA1
The Institute for Apprenticeships
Establishment
ZA1 The Institute for Apprenticeships
‘(1) A body corporate known as the Institute for Apprenticeships is established.
(2) In this Act that body is referred to as “the IfA”.
(3) Schedule A1 makes further provision about the IfA.
General duties and functions
ZA2 General duties
‘(1) So far as relevant, and subject to any notice given by the Secretary of State under subsection (2), in performing its functions the IfA must have regard to—
(a) the reasonable requirements of industry, commerce, finance, the professions and other employers regarding education and training within the IfA’s remit;
(b) the reasonable requirements of persons who may wish to undertake education and training within the IfA’s remit;
(c) the need to ensure that education and training within the IfA’s remit is of an appropriate quality;
(d) theneed to ensure that education and training within the IfA’s remit represents good value in relation to financial resources provided out of public funds;
(e) any information provided to it by any person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2) The Secretary of State may give a notice in writing to the IfA setting out other matters to which the IfA must have regard when performing its functions.
(3) The Secretary of State may not give a notice under subsection (2) more than once in any financial year (within the meaning given by section ZA6(6)), except as provided by subsection (4).
(4) Where in a financial year—
(a) a notice is given under subsection (2), and
(b) after the giving of the notice a new Parliament meets for the first time,
the Secretary of State may give one further notice under subsection (2) in that year.
(5) The IfA must perform its functions efficiently and effectively.
(6) For the purposes of this section, education or training is within the IfA’s remit if the education or training is or may be provided in the course of an approved English apprenticeship.
(7) Subsection (1) and any notice under subsection (2) do not apply in relation to functions that are— Where directions or regulations so provide, the directions or regulations—
(a) delegated by directions under section ZA4, or
(b) conferred by regulations under section ZA5,
unless the regulations or directions provide for them to apply in relation to the functions.
(c) may provide for any education or training to which the functions relate to be treated as within the IfA’s remit for the purposes of this section;
(d) may provide for subsection (1) and any notice under subsection (2) to apply in relation to the functions with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(8) The Secretary of State must—
(a) publish in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit any notice under subsection (2), and
(b) lay a copy of it before Parliament.
ZA3 Provision of advice and assistance to the Secretary of State etc
‘(1) The IfA may, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State, provide the Secretary of State with advice and assistance in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England.
(2) The Secretary of State’s functions mentioned in subsection (1) include those under section 100(1A) or otherwise relating to the funding of apprenticeships in relation to England.
ZA4 Delegation of functions to the IfA by Secretary of State
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by direction delegate to the IfA any of the Secretary of State’s functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England.
(2) The functions may be delegated—
(a) to any extent that the Secretary of State specifies in the direction, and
(b) subject to any conditions that the Secretary of State specifies in the direction.
(3) The Secretary of State’s functions mentioned in subsection (1) include those under section 100(1A) or otherwise relating to the funding of apprenticeships in relation to England.
ZA5 Conferral of further functions on the IfA by regulations
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer on the IfA such functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) A function conferred by regulations under subsection (1) may involve the exercise of a discretion.
ZA6 Annual and other reports
‘(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, the IfA must prepare an annual report.
(2) An annual report is a report which includes—
(a) a description of what the IfA has done during the year, including a description of what the IfA has done as a result of any notice given by the Secretary of State under section ZA2(2),
(b) the statement of accounts prepared for that year under paragraph 11 of Schedule A1, and
(c) such other provision as the Secretary of State may direct.
(3) The IfA must send the report to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after it has been prepared.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State may direct the IfA to prepare, and send to the Secretary of State, as soon as reasonably practicable a report on any matter relating to its functions.
(6) In this section “financial year” means—
(a) the period beginning with the day on which this section comes into force and ending with the following 31 March, and
(b) each successive period of 12 months.
Compliance
ZA7 Secretary of State directions where the IfA fails to discharge duties etc
If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the IfA—
(a) has failed to discharge a duty imposed on it by or under this Act, or
(b) has acted or is proposing to act in an unreasonable way in exercising any function,
the Secretary of State may give the IfA such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
Directions
ZA8 General provision about directions under Chapters ZA1 and A1
‘(1) This section applies to a direction given to the IfA by the Secretary of State under this Chapter or Chapter A1.
(2) The IfA must comply with the direction.
(3) The direction must be in writing.”
3 Before section A1 insert—
“Introductory”
4 In section A1 (meaning of “approved English apprenticeship”), in subsection (3)(a) for “the Secretary of State has published an approved apprenticeship standard under section A2” substitute “an approved apprenticeship standard has been published under section A2”.
5 For section A2 (approved apprenticeship standards) substitute—
“Publication of standards and assessment plans
A2 Apprenticeship standards and assessment plans
‘(1) The IfA must publish—
(a) standards for such sectors of work as the IfA considers appropriate for the purposes of this Chapter, and
(b) assessment plans in respect of published standards.
(2) Each standard must—
(b) if there is more than one standard for the sector, describe the kind of work within the sector to which it relates.
(3) Each standard must set out the outcomes that persons seeking to complete an approved English apprenticeship are expected to attain in order to achieve the standard.
(4) An assessment plan in respect of a standard is a plan in accordance with which a person’s attainment of the outcomes set out in the standard is to be assessed.
(5) Each assessment plan must—
(b) set out the proposed arrangements for evaluating the quality of any assessment provided for by the plan.
(6) The following provisions supplement the provision made by this section—
section A2A makes provision about the preparation of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
sections A2B to A2D make provision related to ensuring the quality of apprenticeship assessments;
sections A2E and A2F make provision about the review, revision and withdrawal of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
section A2G makes provision for independent examinations of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
section A2H makes provision about the maintenance of a published list of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
section A2I provides for the automatic transfer to the IfA of copyright in apprenticeship standards and assessment plans.
A2A Preparation of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans
‘(1) Each standard or assessment plan published under section A2 must have been prepared by a group of persons and approved by the IfA.
(2) The group of persons that prepared a standard or assessment plan published under section A2 must have been approved by the IfA for the purposes of this section.
(3) The IfA may provide advice or assistance to a group of persons in connection with the preparation of a standard or assessment plan.
(4) The IfA must publish—
(a) information about matters that it takes into account when deciding whether or not to approve standards or plans for the purposes of subsection (1);
(b) information about matters that it takes into account when deciding whether or not to approve groups of persons for the purposes of subsection (2).
(5) When making a decision of the kind mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (b) in a particular case, the IfA may also take into account such other matters as it considers appropriate in the case in question.
(6) Information published under subsection (4) may be revised or replaced, and the IfA must publish under that subsection any revised or replacement information.
Quality assurance
A2B Evaluation of quality of apprenticeship assessments
‘(1) The IfA must secure that evaluations are carried out of the quality of apprenticeship assessments provided by persons in relation to assessment plans published under section A2.
(2) “Apprenticeship assessment” means the assessment of a person’s attainment of the outcomes set out in the standard to which the assessment plan relates.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the IfA may approve or make arrangements for other persons to carry out evaluations.
A2C Unsatisfactory apprenticeship assessments
‘(1) If the IfA considers that the quality of any apprenticeship assessment provided by a person is or may become unsatisfactory, it may carry out a review of the assessment, or make arrangements with another person for the carrying out of such a review.
(2) The IfA may, in consequence of a review, make arrangements for the purpose of improving the quality of the assessment to which the review relates.
(3) If the IfA—
(a) considers that the quality of any apprenticeship assessment provided by a person is or may become unsatisfactory, or
(b) that a person who provides an apprenticeship assessment has failed to co-operate with a review carried out under this section or with arrangements made under subsection (2),
it may report the matter to the Secretary of State or such other person as the IfA considers appropriate.
(4) A report under subsection (3) may contain recommendations as to the action to be taken by the person to whom the report is made.
(5) The IfA may publish a report under subsection (3).
A2D Committee to advise on quality evaluations etc
‘(1) The IfA may establish a committee with—
(a) the function of giving the IfA advice on the performance of its functions under sections A2B and A2C, and
(b) such other functions as may be conferred on the committee by the IfA.
(2) A majority of the members of the committee—
(a) must be persons who appear to the IfA to have experience of the assessment of education or training, and
(b) must not be members of the IfA.
(3) Subject to that, Schedule A1 applies to a committee established under this section as it applies to committees established under paragraph 7 of that Schedule.
Review, revision and withdrawal
A2E Regular reviews of published standards and assessment plans
‘(1) The IfA must maintain arrangements for the review at regular intervals of each standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, with a view to determining whether the standard or plan ought to be revised or withdrawn.
(2) In respect of each standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, the IfA must publish information about the intervals at which those reviews are to be conducted.
A2F Revision or withdrawal of published standards and assessment plans
‘(1) The IfA may—
(a) publish a revised version of a standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, or
(b) withdraw a standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter (with or without publishing another in its place).
(2) Section A2A applies in relation to a revised version of a standard or plan published under this section as it applies in relation to a standard or plan published under section A2.
Other provisions about English approved apprenticeships
A2G Examinations by independent third parties
‘(1) Before the IfA approves a standard or assessment plan for the purposes of section A2A(1) it must make arrangements for the carrying out of an examination of the standard or plan by an independent third party.
(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a revised version of a standard or assessment plan, but the IfA may, for the purposes of a review under section A2E or at any other time, make arrangements for the carrying out of an examination of a standard or assessment plan by an independent third party.
(3) Where an examination of a standard or assessment plan is carried out under this section, the IfA must take account of the finding of the examination in exercising its functions in relation to the standard or plan under this Chapter.
(4) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents the IfA deciding to reject a standard or assessment plan without first making arrangements for the carrying out of an examination by an independent third party.
A2H List of published standards and assessment plans
‘(1) The IfA must maintain a list of the standards and assessment plans published by it under this Chapter.
(2) In respect of each standard and plan listed (including any revised version), the list must include details of when it comes into force.
(3) Where a revised version is listed, the list must include a general description of the cases to which the revised version applies.
(4) Where a standard or plan has been withdrawn, the list must include details of when the withdrawal comes into force and a general description of the cases to which it applies.
(5) The IfA must secure that the list is available free of charge at all reasonable times.
A2I Transfer of copyright in standards and assessment plans
‘(1) This section applies where—
(a) a standard or assessment plan is approved by the IfA undersection A2A, and
(b) a person (other than the IfA) is entitled, immediately before the time the approval is given, to any right or interest in any copyright in the standard or plan.
(2) The right or interest is, by virtue of this section, transferred from that person to the IfA at the time the approval is given.
(3) The IfA must ensure that a standard or assessment plan in relation to which a right or interest has transferred by virtue of subsection (2) is made available to the public, subject to any conditions that the IfA considers appropriate.”
6 (1) Section A3 (pow er to issue apprenticeship certificate) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for “to” substitute “in respect of”.
(3) In subsection (2), for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) the supply by the Secretary of State of apprenticeship certificates issued under that subsection, and copies of those certificates, to—
(i) persons in respect of whom they were issued;
(ii) persons for whom those persons work or have worked under approved English apprenticeship agreements to which the certificates relate.”
7 In section 122 (sharing of information for education and training purposes)—
(a) in subsection (3) (persons who may provide and receive information), after paragraph (f) insert—
“(g) the IfA.”;
(b) in subsection (5) (functions for the purposes of which information may be provid ed)—
(i) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b), and
(ii) after paragraph (b) insert—
8 In section 262(6) (orders and regulations subject to affirmative procedure) before paragraph(ab) insert—
“(aab) regulations under section ZA5;”
9 Before Schedule 1 insert—
“Schedule A1
the Institute for Apprenticeships
Status
1 The IfA is to perform its functions on behalf of the Crown.
Membership
2 (1) The IfA is to consist of—
(a) a member appointed by the Secretary of State to chair the IfA (“the chair”);
(b) the chief executive appointed in accordance with paragraph 5;
(c) at least 4 and no more than 10 other members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) The chair and members appointed under sub-paragraph (1)(c) are referred to in this Schedule as the “non-executive members”.
Tenure of non-executive members
3 (1) The non-executive members hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointment.
(2) Those terms are to be determined by the Secretary of State, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule.
(3) A non-executive member must not be appointed for a term of more than five years.
(4) A non-executive member may resign from office at any time by giving written notice to the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State may remove a non-executive member from office on either of the following grounds—
(a) inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of office;
(b) absence from the IfA’s meetings for a continuous period of more than 6 months without the IfA’s permission.
(6) The previous appointment of a person as a non-executive member does not affect the person’s eligibility for re-appointment.
Remuneration of non-executive members
4 (1) The IfA must, if the Secretary of State requires it to do so, pay remuneration, allowances and expenses to its non-executive members.
(2) The IfA must, if the Secretary of State requires it to do so, pay, or make provision for the payment of, a pension, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of a person who is or has been a non-executive member.
(3) If a person ceases to be a non-executive member of the IfA and the Secretary of State decides that the person should be compensated because of special circumstances, the IfA must pay compensation to the person.
(4) The amount of a payment under sub-paragraph (1), (2) or (3) is to be determined by the Secretary of State.
(5) Service as a non-executive member is one of the kinds of service to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation schemes as respects civil servants etc) can apply (see Schedule 1 to that Act).
(6) The IfA must pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as the Minister may direct, such sums as the Minister may determine in respect of any increase attributable to the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 payable to or in respect of non-executive members in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.
Chief executive and other staff
5 (1) The first chief executive is to be appointed by the Secretary of State on conditions of service determined by the Secretary of State, after consulting the chair.
(2) Subsequent chief executives are to be appointed by the IfA after consulting the Secretary of State.
(3) The chief executive must not be appointed for a term of more than five years.
(4) The previous appointment of a person as chief executive does not affect the person’s eligibility for re-appointment.
(5) The chief executive holds that office as a member of staff of the IfA.
(6) The IfA may appoint other members of staff.
(7) Service as a member of staff of the IfA is employment in the civil service of the State.
(8) The following are to be determined by the IfA with the approval of the Secretary of State—
(a) the number of members of staff of the IfA (in addition to the chief executive);
(b) the conditions of service of staff of the IfA.
(9) Sub-paragraph (8)(b) is subject to sub-paragraph (1).
Arrangements with Secretary of State
6 The Secretary of State and the IfA may enter into arrangements with each other for the provision to the IfA by the Secretary of State, on such terms as may be agreed, of staff, accommodation or services.
Committees
7 (1) The IfA may establish committees, and any committee established by the IfA may establish sub-committees.
(2) The IfA may—
(a) dissolve a sub-committee established under sub-paragraph (1), or
(b) alter the purposes for which such a sub-committee is established.
(3) In this Schedule a committee or sub-committee established under sub-paragraph (1) is referred to as an “IfA committee”.
(4) An IfA committee must include at least two persons who are members of the IfA or its staff.
(5) The IfA may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, arrange for the payment of remuneration, allowances and expenses to any person who—
(a) is a member of an IfA committee, but
(b) is not a member of the IfA or its staff.
(6) The IfA must, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State, review—
(a) the structure of IfA committees, and
(b) the scope of the activities of each IfA committee.
Procedure
8 (1) The IfA may regulate—
(a) its own proceedings (including quorum), and
(b) the procedure (including quorum) of IfA committees.
(2) The validity of proceedings of the IfA, or of an IfA committee, is not affected by—
(a) a vacancy;
(b) a defective appointment.
Exercise of functions
9 (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), the IfA may authorise any of the following to exercise functions on its behalf—
(a) a member of the IfA;
(b) a member of the IfA’s staff;
(c) an IfA committee;
(d) any other person.
(2) The IfA may not authorise any of the functions under sections A2, A2A and A2E to A2I to be exercised on its behalf—
(a) under sub-paragraph (1)(c), by a committee a majority of the members of which are not members of the IfA’s staff, or
(b) under sub-paragraph (1)(d).
(3) The IfA may authorise the exercise on its behalf of functions that have been—
(a) delegated to the IfA by directions under section ZA4, or
(b) conferred on the IfA by regulations under section ZA5,
only if and to the extent that the directions or regulations so provide.
Supplementary powers
10 (1) The IfA may—
(a) provide information or advice to any person in connection with any of the IfA’s functions;
(b) co-operate or work jointly with any person where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective performance of any of the IfA’s functions;
(c) carry out research for the purposes of, or in connection with, the IfA’s functions;
(d) do anything else that the IfA considers necessary or appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, its functions.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1)(d) is subject to any restrictions imposed by or under any provision of any Act.
(3) The IfA may not borrow money.
(4) The IfA may not, without the consent of the Secretary of State—
(a) lend money,
(b) form, participate in forming or invest in a company, or
(c) form, participate in forming or otherwise become a member of a charitable incorporated organisation (within the meaning of section 69A of the Charities Act 1993).
(5) In sub-paragraph (4) the reference to investing in a company includes a reference to becoming a member of the company and to investing in it by the acquisition of any assets, securities or rights or otherwise.
Accounts and reports
11 (1) The IfA must—
(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to its accounts, and
(b) prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts.
(2) Each statement of accounts must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State as to—
(a) the information to be contained in it,
(b) the manner in which such information is to be presented, or
(c) the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(3) The IfA must send a copy of each statement of accounts to—
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) the Comptroller and Auditor General,
before the end of the month of August following the financial year to which the statement relates.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—
(a) examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts, and
(b) send a copy of each report and certified statement to the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) a copy of each statement sent to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (3), and
(b) a copy of each report and certified statement sent to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (4).
(6) “Financial year” has the meaning given by section ZA6(6) (annual and other reports).
Application of seal and proof of documents
12 (1) The application of the IfA’s seal must be authenticated by the signature of—
(a) the chief executive, or
(b) a member of the IfA who has been authorised by the IfA for that purpose (whether generally or specifically).
(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the IfA’s seal, or signed o n its behalf—
(a) is to be received in evidence, and
(b) is to be treated as executed or signed in that way, unless the contrary is proved.
Funding
13 (1) The Secretary of State may make grants to the IfA, or provide the IfA with any other kind of financial assistance, subject to any conditions that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) The conditions may, in particular—
(a) enable the Secretary of State to require full or partial repayment of sums paid by the Secretary of State if any of the conditions are not complied with;
(b) require the payment of interest in respect of any period during which a sum due to the Secretary of State in accordance with any of the conditions remains unpaid.”
10 In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972, in the list of “Offices”, at the appropriate place insert—“Non-executive member of the Institute for Apprenticeships.”
“Non-executive member of the Institute for Apprenticeships.” |
11 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities) at the appropriate place insert—
“The Institute for Apprenticeships.”
This new Schedule establishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and makes provision about its functions.
Amendment (a) to new schedule 2, at end of new section ZA6(2) insert “including—
(i) responses to any conclusions and recommendations of the select committee of the House of Commons with oversight of the Government Department responsible for apprenticeships;
(ii) a report on the progress made in increasing the opportunities for disadvantaged groups to access apprenticeships under the frameworks.”
This Amendment would ensure progress made in increasing the opportunities for disadvantaged groups to access apprenticeships under the frameworks was reported and monitored.
Amendment (b) to new schedule 2, at end of new section ZA6(3) insert—
“as well as to the Business, Innovation and Skills and Education Select Committees of the House of Commons and any relevant sub-committee.”
This Amendment would confirm reports produced by the Institute for Apprenticeships are read and reviewed by the relevant committees listed and enable them to raise any issues arising directly with Ministers as from the relevant Select Committees.
Amendment (c) to new schedule 2, at end of paragraph 2 of new schedule A1 insert—
‘(1A) The Board of the Institute shall be broadly based, to take into account the experience and contribution of all interested parties, which will include—
(a) employers,
(b) further education providers and colleges,
(c) universities,
(d) relevant trade unions and
(e) local authorities.
(1B) The Board of the Institute shall have due regard to the equality implications of their role and functions, and in particular, that in the frameworks and regulations they approve, the need to encourage and expand opportunities for apprenticeships for BAME, people with disabilities and care leavers shall be prioritised.”
Subsection (1A) is intended to ensure that there is a broad membership of the Board of the Institute, which encompasses and utilises the experience and expertise of all groups involved with, and crucial to, the successful promotion and delivery of apprenticeships. Subsection (1B) would lay a responsibility on the Board to encourage and expand opportunities for apprenticeships for BAME, people with disabilities and care leavers.
Government amendment 94.
Anna Soubry
We began our deliberations two weeks ago. Last week was meant to be the recess, but I imagine most of us were working. It is nice to have an opportunity to put that on the record.
The new Institute for Apprenticeships will help to deliver high-quality approved English apprenticeships within the context of the Government’s £3 million target. It is a new body with no past involvement in apprenticeships. It is important to ensure that employers feel it is credible and reliable. An independent chair and board made up primarily of employers and business leaders and their representatives will lead the IfA, which is what it will be known as.
An employers-led IfA is essential for credibility and success. Mandating other groups to be included on the board could eventually exclude them. The IfA is already required to lay all reports before Parliament so they will be available to all Members. The annual Government letter could be used to ensure that Select Committees are sent their own copies. Apprenticeships, as we all know, are jobs. Government cannot impose a requirement on employers to employ certain groups over others.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept that the new IfA is the right step forward. By way of example to give a little more detail, sector and assessment experts, academics and others will all help the IfA to carry out its functions with the best possible expert advice. Employer groups will continue to develop the content of standards and assessment plans, and they will ensure that they are fit for purpose. The IfA will accurately represent the needs of employers, which is fundamental to apprenticeship reforms, and to the success of apprenticeships.
It is right that so many apprenticeships are excellent but it is also the case that there is concern among employers that some apprenticeships are not tailored enough to their needs as well as to the wider needs of society. It is imperative that this is led by the very people who will provide those apprenticeships. It goes without saying that they will work hand in glove with the providers to ensure that they deliver what is needed by our employers. I do not intend to say much more on that at this stage.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister is right to remind us that we debated apprenticeships two weeks ago, at the appropriate point in the Bill. People may have forgotten the reason we are debating this now, so it is worth reminding the Committee that it is because the Government were not able to get their amendments in on time to debate it at the appropriate place in the Bill. At that time, we tabled a new clause to create an institute for apprenticeships and we are still of the view that our proposal is better than the Government’s and that it is more comprehensive, inclusive and extensive. That is why we are disappointed by the Government’s proposal, although we will not vote against it as it is right to create this institute. It could be improved by some of the suggestions that we made in amendments (a), (b) and (c) that we tabled to the Government’s new schedule 2.
Amendment (a) to new schedule 2 would ensure that progress made in increasing the opportunities for disadvantaged groups to access apprenticeships under the framework was reported and monitored. To avoid the risk of being tedious, because we discussed that earlier I will not rehearse those arguments again. I will simply refer anyone reading the record to our earlier debate.
Amendment (b) to new schedule 2 would confirm reports produced by the institute for apprenticeships are read and reviewed by the relevant Committees, which we list, and enable them to raise directly with Ministers any issues arising. We think that is important because Select Committees with responsibilities for apprenticeships must have the opportunity to scrutinise and recommend action based on the institute’s work. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on that.
With amendment (c) we return again to an earlier discussion—we have had to debate this at the end because the Government’s proposals were not ready in time. The amendment is intended to ensure that there is a broad membership of the board of the institute for apprenticeships. We discussed that extensively earlier so I will not repeat those arguments.
I would be interested to hear the Minister give the Government’s response to our suggestions in amendment (b) before we conclude.
Anna Soubry
I do not think I am in a position to be able to do that, Ms Buck. I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman because I do not have that amendment in front of me, unfortunately. I do not think it is actually in the document I have, so I apologise for that. I am more than happy to take an intervention, which might enable the hon. Gentleman just to hand it over to me. I do not think he has it either.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Ms Buck. Is there any means by which we could perhaps return to the matter this afternoon, to give the Minister and her officials an opportunity to provide the answer we were looking for to the amendment, which we tabled in time, and which appeared in the appropriate part of the amendment paper?
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood is sitting behind me, standing in for my normal Parliamentary Private Secretary and doing an excellent job, because unfortunately my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby is extremely poorly at the moment—and now, by magic, I can assist the hon. Member for Cardiff West. The view of the Government is that we do not need legislation to send the reports to Select Committees. It is as simple as that.
That relates to what I said about the fact that the procedures already exist. We do not need legislation, because we can already do it. If we need to do it we will. I am sorry that something so simple has taken so long for me to answer.
Kevin Brennan
May I gently say to the Minister that a lot of give and take is always required in Committee, and we have our job to do in scrutinising the Bill and proposing Opposition amendments? The Government have their job, and the minimum requirement is to turn up prepared to discuss with the Committee every clause and every amendment that has been selected. That, if I may say so, is government 101.
It is becoming a little bit of a pattern that that preparation has not been done, and I do not know why it is so, but there have been a number of occasions where it seems as if the Minister does not have the full briefing that she should have in front of her. If I am being unkind I will withdraw that, but it is for other Members who watch our proceedings and for Committee members to decide what they think about it. However, it is the minimum requirement, if I may put it as gently as that, that we should receive a response to our amendment from the Government. We are trying to do our job and the Minister is trying to do hers. We need the preparation to be done in advance of our proceedings. On that basis, and to save further embarrassment, I will not press our amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 22 read a Second time and added to the Bill.
New Clause 23
The Institute for Apprenticeships: transitional provision
“(1) Subsection (2) applies to—
(a) any standard approved and published by the Secretary of State under section A2 of the 2009 Act before the appointed day;
(b) any plan which—
(i) relates to the assessment of a person’s attainment of outcomes set out in a standard mentioned in paragraph (a), and
(ii) was approved and published by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that assessment before the appointed day.
(2) Such a standard or plan is to be treated on and after the appointed day as having been approved by the Institute for Apprenticeships under section A2A of the 2009 Act and published by it under section A2 of that Act (as amended by Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships)).
(3) A standard or plan within subsection (1) is to be treated for the purposes of section A2I of the 2009 Act (as inserted by Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships)) as having been approved by the Institute for Apprenticeship at the beginning of the appointed day.
(4) This section does not limit the provision that may be made under clause 37.
(5) In this section—
“the appointed day” means the day on which section A2A of the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (inserted by Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships)) comes into force;
“the 2009 Act” means the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.”—(Anna Soubry.)
This new Clause makes transitional provision relating to the establishment of the Institute for Apprenticeships.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 21
Extended Sunday opening hours and Sunday working
“(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 (which restricts the opening hours of large shops on Sundays), after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to the opening of a large shop during any other period on a Sunday in accordance with a consent notice published under paragraph 2A (subject to sub-paragraph (4)).”
(3) After that paragraph insert—
“Consent notices published by Sunday trading authorities
2A (1) The Sunday trading authority for an area may publish a notice (a “consent notice”) in accordance with this paragraph providing for large shops in the authority’s area to be permitted to do either or both of the following—
(a) to open on a Sunday for a continuous period of whatever number of hours is specified in the notice (in addition to the continuous period of six hours mentioned in paragraph 2(3));
(b) to open on a Sunday at specified times beginning earlier than, or ending later than, the times mentioned in paragraph 2(3).
(2) A consent notice published by a Sunday trading authority may apply in relation to the whole or any part of the authority’s area.
(3) A Sunday trading authority may, by publishing a further notice, vary or revoke a consent notice that applies in relation to its area.
(4) Before varying or revoking a consent notice under sub-paragraph (3), a Sunday trading authority must give reasonable notice to occupiers of large shops whose opening hours on Sundays would be affected by the variation or revocation.
(5) Publication of a notice under this paragraph may take whatever form the authority publishing it thinks appropriate for the purpose of bringing the notice to the attention of occupiers of large shops in the area to which the notice relates.
(6) Subject to sub-paragraph (7), the Sunday trading authority for an area is the local authority for the area.
(7) In relation to the area of Greater London, the Sunday trading authority is the Mayor of London acting on behalf of the Greater London Authority.”
(4) Accordingly—
(a) in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 (restrictions on Sunday opening)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (1), for “and (3)” substitute “, (3) and (3A)”;
(ii) in sub-paragraph (4), for “exemption conferred by sub-paragraph (3) above does” substitute “exemptions conferred by sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A) do”;
(b) in paragraph 6 of that Schedule (duty to display notice), after “sub-paragraph (3)” insert “or (3A)”;
(c) in paragraph 8 of that Schedule (defence to an offence of contravening opening restrictions), after “paragraph 2(3)” insert “or (3A)”;
(d) in paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 3 (loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning: application), after “paragraph 2(3)” insert “or (3A)”.
(5) Schedule (Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers), which contains amendments of employment legislation relating to the rights of shop workers to opt out of working on Sunday, has effect.”—(Brandon Lewis.)
This new Clause amends the Sunday Trading Act 1994, giving powers to local areas to extend Sunday trading hours for large shops (with a retail floor area greater than 280 square metres). The extended hours can apply to the whole or part of the local area. The new Clause also introduces a new Schedule to the Bill containing amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Act 2002 in relation to Sunday working.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new schedule 1—Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers.
“Schedule
Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers
Employment Rights Act 1996
1 The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
2 In section 41 (opted-out shop workers and betting workers), for subsection (3) substitute—
(3) In this Act “notice period”, in relation to an opted-out shop worker or an opted-out betting worker, means—
(a) in the case of an opted-out shop worker who does shop work in or about a large shop, the period of one month beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given;
(b) in any other case, the period of three months beginning with that day.
This subsection is subject to sections 41D(2) and 42(2).”
3 After section 41 insert—
“41A Notice of objection by shop workers to working additional hours on Sunday
(1) A shop worker may at any time give to his or her employer a written notice, signed and dated by the shop worker, to the effect that he or she objects to doing shop work for additional hours on Sunday.
(2) In this Part—
“additional hours” means any number of hours of shop work that a shop worker is (or could be) required to work under a contract of employment on Sunday that are(or would be) in excess of the shop worker’s normal Sunday working hours;
“objection notice” means a notice given under subsection (1).
(3) The “normal Sunday working hours” of a shop worker are to be calculated in accordance with regulations.
(4) Regulations under this section may provide—
(a) for the calculation to be determined (for example) by reference to the average number of hours that the shop worker has worked on Sundays during a period specified or described in the regulations;
(b) for a calculation of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) to be varied in special cases;
(c) for the right to give an objection notice not to be exercisable in special cases (and subsection (1) is subject to provision made by virtue of this paragraph).
(5) Provision under subsection (4)( b) or (c) may, in particular, include provision—
(a) about how the calculation of normal Sunday working hours is to be made in the case of a shop worker who has not been employed for a sufficient period of time to enable a calculation to be made as otherwise provided for in the regulations;
(b) for the right to give an objection notice not to be exercisable by such a shop worker until he or she has completed a period of employment specified or described in the regulations.
(6) But regulations under this section may not include provision preventing a shop worker who has been continuously employed under a contract of employment for a period of one year or more from giving to the employer an objection notice.
(7) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
41B Explanatory statement: persons who become shop workers
(1) This section applies where a person becomes a shop worker who, under a contract of employment, is or may be required to do shop work on Sundays.
(2) The employer must give to the shop worker a written statement informing the shop worker of the following rights—
(a) the right to object to working on Sundays by giving the employer an opting-out notice (if section 40 applies to the shop worker);
(b) the right to object to doing shop work for additional hours on Sundays by giving the employer an objection notice.
(3) The statement must be given before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which the person becomes a shop worker as mentioned in subsection (1).
(4) An employer does not fail to comply with subsections (2) and (3) in a case where, before the end of the period referred to in subsection (3), the shop worker has given to the employer an opting-out notice (and that notice has not been withdrawn).
(5) A statement under this section must comply with such requirements as to form and content as regulations may provide.
(6) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
41C Explanatory statement: shop workers at commencement date
(1) This section applies where—
(a) under a contract of employment a shop worker is or may be required to do shop work on Sundays, and
(b) the shop worker was employed under that contract on the day before the commencement date.
(2) The shop worker’s employer must give to the shop worker a written statement informing the shop worker of the rights mentioned in section 41B(2).
(3) The statement must be given before the end of the period of two months beginning with the commencement date.
(4) An employer does not fail to comply with subsections (2) and (3) in a case where, before the end of the period referred to in subsection (3), the shop worker has given to the employer an opting-out notice (and that notice has not been withdrawn).
(5) A statement under this section must comply with such requirements as to form and content as regulations may provide.
(6) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
(7) In this section “commencement date” means the date appointed by regulations under section38 of the Enterprise Act 2016 for the coming into force of section (Extended Sunday opening hour and Sunday working)(5) of, and Schedule (Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers) to, that Act.
41D Failure to give explanatory statement under section 41B or 41C
(1) This section applies if an employer fails to give to a shop worker a written statement in accordance with—
(a) section 41B(2) and (3), or
(b) section 41C(2) and (3).
(2) If the shop worker gives to the employer an opting-out notice, the notice period under section 41(3) that applies in relation to the shop worker is varied as follows—
(a) if the notice period under that provision would have been one month, it becomes 7 days instead;
(b) if the notice period under that provision would have been three months, it becomes one month instead.
(3) If the shop worker gives to the employer an objection notice, the relevant period under section 43ZA(2) that applies in relation to the shop worker is varied as follows—
(a) if the relevant period under that provision would have been one month, it becomes 7 days instead;
(b) if the relevant period under that provision would have been three months, it becomes one month instead.”
4 (1) Section 42 (explanatory statement) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “statement” insert “: betting workers”.
(3) In subsection (1) omit “shop worker or”.
(4) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a) omit “shop worker or”;
(b) in paragraph (b)—
(i) after “the” omit “shop worker or”;
(ii) omit “an opted-out shop worker or”.
(5) In subsection (3) omit “shop worker or”.
(6) Omit subsection (4).
(7) In subsection (6)—
(a) for “forms” substitute “form”;
(b) for “subsections (4) and (5)” substitute “subsection (5)”.
5 In the heading of section 43, after “work” insert “: opting-out notices”.
6 After section 43 (in Part 4) insert—
“43ZA Contractual requirements relating to working additional hours on Sundays: objection notices
(1) Where a shop worker gives to his or her employer an objection notice, any agreement entered into between the shop worker and the employer becomes unenforceable to the extent that—
(a) it requires the shop worker to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday after the end of the relevant period, or
(b) it requires the employer to provide the shop worker with shop work for additional hours on Sunday after the end of that period.
(2) The “relevant period” is—
(a) in the case of a shop worker who is or may be required to do shop work in or about a large shop, the period of one month beginning with the day on which the objection notice is given;
(b) in any other case, the period of three months beginning with that day.
This subsection is subject to section 41D(3).
(3) A shop worker who has given an objection notice may revoke the notice by giving a further written notice to the employer.
(4) Where—
(a) a shop worker gives to the employer a notice under subsection (3), and
(b) after giving the notice the shop worker expressly agrees with the employer to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday (whether on Sundays generally or on a particular Sunday),
the contract of employment between the shop worker and the employer is to be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.
(5) The reference in subsection (1) to any agreement—
(a) includes the contract of employment under which the shop worker is employed immediately before giving the objection notice;
(b) includes an agreement of a kind mentioned in subsection (4), or a contract of employment as taken to be varied under that subsection, only if an objection notice is given in relation to the working of additional hours under that agreement or contract as varied.
43ZB Interpretation
(1) In this Part—
“additional hours” has the meaning given in section 41A(2);
“large shop” means a shop which has a relevant floor area exceeding 280 square metres;
“objection notice” has the meaning given in section 41A(2);
“regulations” means regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) In the definition of “large shop” in subsection (1)—
(a) “shop” means any premises where there is carried on a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale of goods;
(b) “relevant floor area” means the internal floor area of so much of the large shop in question as consists of or is comprised in a building.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), any part of the shop which is not used for the serving of customers in connection with the sale or display of goods is to be disregarded.
(4) The references in subsections (2) and (3) to the sale of goods does not include—
(a) the sale of meals, refreshments or alcohol (within the meaning of the Licensing Act 2003) for consumption on the premises on which they are sold, or
(b) the sale of meals or refreshments prepared to order for immediate consumption off those premises.”
7 After section 45 insert—
“45ZA Sunday working for shop workers: additional hours
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a shop worker has given an objection notice to his or her employer and the notice has not been withdrawn.
(2) The shop worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the employer done on the ground that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to anything done on the ground that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the relevant period.
(4) A shop worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his or her employer on the ground that the shop worker gave (or proposed to give) an objection notice to the employer.
(5) Subsections (2) and (4) do not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal (within the meaning of Part 10).
(6) For the purposes of this section, a shop worker who does not do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment by—
(a) a failure to pay remuneration in respect of doing shop work for additional hours on Sunday which the shop worker has not done, or
(7) Subsections (8) and (9) apply where—
(a) an employer offers to pay a sum specified in the offer to a shop worker if he or she agrees to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday, and
(b) the shop worker—
(i) has given an objection notice to the employer that has not been withdrawn, or
(ii) is not obliged under a contract of employment to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday.
(8) A shop worker to whom the offer is not made is not to be regarded for the purposes of this section as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure—
(a) to make the offer to the shop worker, or
(b) to pay the shop worker the sum specified in the offer.
(9) A shop worker who does not accept the offer is not to be regarded for the purposes of this section as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to pay the shop worker the sum specified in the offer.
(10) In this section—
“additional hours” and “objection notice” have the meanings given by section 41A(2);
“relevant period” means the period determined by section 43ZA(2) (but subject to section 41D(3)).”
8 After section 101 insert—
“101ZA Shop workers who refuse to work additional hours on Sunday
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a shop worker has given an objection notice that has not been withdrawn and he or she is dismissed.
(2) The shop worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or the principal reason) for the dismissal is that he or she refused, or proposed to refuse, to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the relevant period.
(4) A shop worker who is dismissed is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is that the worker gave (or proposed to give) an objection notice to the employer.
(5) In this section—
“additional hours” and “objection notice” have the meanings given by section 41A(2);
“relevant period” means the period determined by section 43ZA(2) (but subject to section 41D(3)).”
9 In section 236 (orders and regulations), in subsection (3) after “27B,” insert “41A that include provision under subsection (4)(c) of that section,”.
Employment Act 2002
10 In section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 (failure to give statement of employment particulars etc)—
(a) in subsection (2)(b), after “change)” insert “or under section 41B or 41C of that Act (duty to give a written statement in relation to rights not to work on Sunday)”;
(b) in subsection (3)(b), after “1996” insert “or under section 41B or 41C of that Act”.”
This new Schedule contains amendments to employment legislation. The amendments: (a) shorten the notice period for opting out of Sunday work in the case of shop workers at large shops, (b) confer a new right to object to working additional hours on Sunday, (c) require employers to give statements explaining those rights, (d) confer protections against detriment and unfair dismissal for refusing to work additional hours on Sunday, and (e) provide for fines in tribunal proceedings if there is a failure to give explanatory statements.
Government amendment (a) to new schedule 1, after paragraph 4(4)(b) insert—
“(c) in the words after paragraph (b), omit “shop worker or””.
This is a technical amendment of NS1 which removes a further reference to a shop worker from section 42 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as that section is to apply only to betting workers as a consequence of other amendments made by this New Schedule).
Government amendment (b) to new schedule 1, in new section 43ZB(4)(a), after “2003” insert
“or, in relation to Scotland, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 16)”.
This is a technical amendment that provides for a definition of “alcohol” in relation to Scotland by reference to the relevant legislation of the Scottish Parliament.
Government amendments 76 and 77.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to make my first outing under your chairmanship, Ms Buck, even just for these last few minutes before we move on to the afternoon sitting.
In the 20 years since the Sunday Trading Act 1994 was passed, the nature of retail has changed. For example, internet retailers now operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and the working patterns of families have changed, so many now want greater flexibility about when they shop. New clause 21 devolves the power to extend Sunday trading hours to local authorities. That includes unitary authorities and district councils that are not unitary authorities across England and Wales, the elected Mayor of London and future mayors resulting from future devolution deals, including the Mayor of Greater Manchester.
Let me be clear. The Government will not dictate to local leaders how they should use the power. We are putting decision-making powers where they should be: in the hands of local leaders. Councils will be able to decide for themselves whether it is effective and appropriate to extend Sunday trading hours in their area, reflecting the needs of local businesses and communities and the shopping habits and economic conditions of the locality.
We have seen the rise of the internet, particularly in the past few years. As the Minister for high streets in the previous Parliament, I know from talking to retailers just how fast online retail is moving. In the UK, we already have the largest online market in Europe, and online sales have continued to increase, reaching 15% of total retail sales in 2015. Things are moving very quickly.
Local leaders will be able to use the consent notice to zone their local area, if they wish. That enables them, for example, to support local traders and independent shops in a focused way in and around high streets and market squares, helping them to compete with online retailers. Retailers in the west end and Knightsbridge— [Laughter.] While Members on the Opposition Benches laugh, I think they should listen to the figures, so that they realise just how important this matter is. Those retailers estimate that opening for just two extra hours on a Sunday would bring economic benefits in the region of between £190 million and £290 million annually. Those retailers also estimate that up to 2,160 full-time equivalent jobs would be created. Just think about what that could mean right across the country, not least in areas that have the opportunity to see real benefit, particularly given that Sunday is now the biggest online retailing day of the week. Devolving the powers will provide greater flexibility for businesses and shop workers and reduce prices for consumers. It will drive competition and productivity, creating jobs and boosting local economies.
Some shop workers are keen to have the opportunity to work longer hours on a Sunday. For them, the weekend represents the best or, in some cases, only time they can work. For example, it may be easier for them to access childcare or they may be students looking for extra or more part-time work.
Members will no doubt know that we have heard from many respondents with concerns that shop workers could be pressured to work on Sundays or to work more hours on a Sunday than they may want to, at the expense of important time with the family, for caring responsibilities or for religious observance. I am clear and up front that we recognise the need for effective protections for shop workers who do not want to work on Sundays or who do not want to work longer hours on Sundays. That is why new clause 21 introduces new schedule 1, which delivers significant strengthening of the rights for shop workers in England, Wales and Scotland by amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Act 2002. The new schedule reduces the notice period for shop workers to opt out of Sunday working altogether from three months to one month in large shops. We recognise that there is a bigger challenge for small shops, so they will need longer to find alternative staffing. The new schedule creates a new right for shop workers to opt out of working more than their normal Sunday working hours subject to one month’s notice for large shops and three months’ notice for small shops.
Brandon Lewis
I will give way in one second; I just want to finish the last point. The new schedule updates the obligation on employers to notify shop workers of their rights by specifying in regulations the form and content of the explanatory notice that employers must provide to existing and new shop workers. It also strengthens the consequences for failure to comply in some important ways.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister talks about rights for shop workers, but surely he must understand that rights are only as good as the ability to use and enforce them. I could make many points, and I will when I make my speech, but one point I must make is that the Government have made it increasingly difficult for any employee to enforce their rights at work, so much of what he is saying is meaningless.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that what I was just about to outline is a direct response to the point she raised. It is important that people are aware of their rights so that they can exercise them, which is why we are strengthening the consequences for failure to comply in two important ways. First, where the employer fails to comply with the notification requirement, the notice period for both opt-outs will reduce automatically from one month to just seven days for large shops, and from three months to one month for small shops. Secondly, we are enabling an employment tribunal to make a minimum award of two weeks’ pay if an employer is found to have failed to notify shop workers of their opt-out rights in the context of a related successful claim. In due course I shall explain how shop workers will be able to exercise and understand their rights.
Catherine McKinnell
What work have the Government undertaken to assess how many shop workers are currently able to exercise their existing rights to exempt themselves from Sunday working in order to inform these measures which, supposedly, protect employees who do not want to work on Sundays?
Brandon Lewis
All shop workers have that right, but my view is very much that we need to ensure that it is more transparent and that they have a better understanding. To exercise rights, people need to know what they are.
New schedule 1 provides powers to make regulations about the meaning of “normal Sunday working hours” and the form and content of explanatory notices. Amendment 76 will enable those powers to come into force on Royal Assent and allow the Government to pass the regulations, but naturally we intend the regulations themselves to come into force with the provisions on Sunday trading hours and the improvements to shop workers’ rights. We intend to define a shop worker’s “normal Sunday working hours” as an average over a number of Sundays, so that the phrase means essentially what it says but is specific enough that both the shop worker and the employer know where they stand. We will publish draft regulations and invite views from stakeholders to take into account issues such as seasonal work.
On the hon. Lady’s very fair point, our intention on the form and content of explanatory notices to shop workers is that as well as being updated, they will be in clearer English than the text in the existing legislation so that shop workers can clearly understand their rights and will be able to exercise them. We also intend to include pointers to sources of further information and advice, such as the ACAS helpline, guidance on gov.uk or, indeed, the relevant union. The changes amount to substantial improvements to shop workers’ rights.
Catherine McKinnell
In explaining the purpose of the clause, the Minister is shining a light on the big problem that the provisions will present to many shop workers in trying to remedy the situation in advance. He must recognise, though, that many shop workers do not want to enter into a dispute with their employer over this issue. Perhaps the Government should think again about whether they should introduce changes that will put both shop workers and their employers into a difficult position.
Brandon Lewis
Actually, we are enhancing the position for both employers and shop workers. We are improving shop workers’ rights and giving better access to and understanding of those rights; we are putting a bigger duty on employers to notify their staff of their rights; we are increasing the penalty for employers who do not abide by the rules; and, importantly, we are giving wider opportunity and choice to local economies and people who wish to work longer on a Sunday or to spend time with their families either by shopping on a Sunday or before or after they have shopped.
Let me be clear to the Committee more generally: if a shop worker suffers detriment, or is dismissed for exercising, or even just planning to exercise, their opt-out rights, the employer will be breaking the law. It is important that that is on the record so that anyone can see it.
Bill Esterson
How does the Minister envisage the rules being enforced? One concern that has been expressed is that the Government can legislate all they want on these sorts of things, but in the end it comes down to the balance of the relationship and whether anyone is prepared to challenge their employer. When a law has been broken, it comes down to whether anything meaningful—anything with teeth—can be applied. How will it work and how realistic are the proposals?
Brandon Lewis
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that, if during the lunch break he looks back over what I said just a few moments ago, he will see that we are increasing the penalties on employers who do not abide by the rules. Not only are we increasing the financial penalty and, therefore, the benefit for an employee who is unfairly treated, but we are giving further responsibilities to the employer on the notice period that they need to give.
It is important that people understand what workers’ rights are, which is why we are increasing the number of ways for people to understand them and know how to exercise them. I say it again: a very large number of people in this country want to work longer hours and want the flexibility to be able to work more hours on a Sunday as opposed to other hours in the week.
Some retailers I have spoken to have been clear that in some areas Sunday is the easiest day of the week for them to recruit staff who want to work. It is good for family opportunities, and it is particularly good for women and students who want to work. We want to ensure that we create that opportunity for more local areas so that they have economic growth and create more jobs, and so that there are more opportunities for people to work if they want to, all while retaining the flexibility for both the local area and shop workers to have the choice.
Brandon Lewis
I can see that the hon. Gentleman is very keen to intervene again.
Bill Esterson
Well, it is an incredibly important point. I was talking about the penalties. How likely is it that the rules will be enforced and the penalties used? We are told that there has been an impact assessment, but it has not been published yet, so we are in the dark as to just how effective the remedies are going to be.
Brandon Lewis
I will admit that it is some years since I was working in employment law, but the laws have been around for a long time. The process by which employees can use their rights has been there and has been developing and evolving for a long time. We are developing it further by increasing employees’ rights.
Not only Conservative but Labour local authorities are keen to have these powers so that they can see their local areas grow and have that flexibility. Ultimately, I feel so passionately about this not only because of the opportunity to see high streets flourish when they can compete with online shopping, which is growing exponentially—not only can we now shop online on Sundays, but companies will deliver at any hour on a Sunday, so we need to give our high streets that chance—but because it is about devolving power, moving it from central Government to where it matters: local communities.
I shall now touch briefly on the technical amendments we have tabled. Amendment (a) to new schedule 1 amends the new schedule to remove an additional reference to a “shop worker” from section 42 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. To be clear, that is simply because, as a consequence of the changes we are making, that section will no longer apply to shop workers. Amendment (b) to new schedule 1 amends the new schedule to provide for a definition of “alcohol” in relation to Scotland by reference to the relevant legislation of the Scottish Parliament. Finally, amendment 77 amends the long title of the Bill to include reference to the Sunday trading provisions.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister said it might be worth while if, over the lunch break, we were to look at what he said earlier. Would he be able to provide us with a copy of his notes? Otherwise we will have to rely on what we heard. We can do that, but he did offer.
Brandon Lewis
I can repeat what I said for the hon. Gentleman very clearly. First, where the employer fails to comply with the notification requirement, the notice period for both opt-outs will reduce automatically: from one month to seven days at large shops, and from three months to one month at small shops. Secondly, we are enabling an employment tribunal to make a minimum award if an employer is found to have failed to notify shop workers of their opt-out rights in the context of a related successful claim. With that, I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Bill Esterson
Finally, we have the long-anticipated debate on Sunday trading. Until the eve of Committee stage, uncertainty reigned as to whether we would be debating it at all—as it was, of course, only the week before that the Secretary of State had announced that Sunday trading would be part of the Bill. From what the Minister just said, it seems that the new clause might be more correctly called the “Harrods clause”, given that Knightsbridge is the only part of the country he could cite where there is support from the high street for the Government’s proposals.
Brandon Lewis
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recollect, I explained the matter to him. Think of the impact across the country. Even in a constituency such as mine, where tourism in its high street is looking to compete with out-of-town shops and online, it is a massive opportunity. I gave an example to highlight just how big these numbers are and how many jobs will potentially be created. I hope he understands that.
Bill Esterson
Those are points I will come to. I did not know that Harrods had a shop in the Minister’s constituency or that it contained the Knightsbridge of the east.
The other description might have been the “domino clause”. The Minister talked about local leaders having the opportunity. The Opposition fully support the proper devolution of powers and responsibilities, and the ability to make a difference in the local area. Although he talked about local leaders, he did not talk about the views of the local community, the workers affected or the small independent retailers and the impact the proposals will have on many small shops.
The problem is that, when talking to local authority leaders and chief executives, as some organisations have done, one main reason given for saying they may well end up implementing these provisions is that they feel they have no choice. Their neighbours having allowed Tesco, Asda or out-of-town shopping centres to have extended opening hours on a Sunday, they fear that loss of trade within their own boundaries will force them down the route of using these provisions in their own local authority area.
The Government knew full well that any attempt to reform Sunday trading legislation would spark significant debate and opposition from a wide range of stakeholders. The Prime Minister’s spokeswoman wrote on 20 April last year to the campaign group Keep Sunday Special assuring them that the Conservatives had no plans to relax Sunday trading laws. Indeed, it was not in the Conservative party manifesto. She wrote:
“I can assure you that we have no current plans to relax the Sunday trading laws. We believe that the current system provides a reasonable balance between those who wish to see more opportunity to shop in large stores on a Sunday, and those who would like to see further restrictions.”
There we have it. Presumably, in the Conservative party, the Government and the previous coalition Government, when the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson spoke it was on his behalf and we should take as gospel what she said at the time. The country as a whole should have trusted what we were told on 20 April. The Government knew this would be opposed and were that worried about it that they went so far as to reassure the country before the election that they had no plans to change Sunday trading laws. They knew it would be opposed, cause problems and break the consensus that had stood for 22 years, since the Sunday Trading Act 1994.
The amendments we are considering include a change to the name of the Bill in amendment 77, as the Minister has just said, to include Sunday trading. We have to wonder what is going on when a Bill started in the Lords and went through the entire Lords proceedings without any mention of Sunday trading. Only on Second Reading in this House was Sunday trading mentioned. In fact, it was so late that Members who oppose changes to Sunday trading did not even know the Bill would consider it.
I spoke to a number of Members on the Government Benches on the day of Second Reading and they had no idea that the issue was in the Bill because they were not in the Chamber to hear the Secretary of State mention it in his opening speech. Had they been, they could have made their opposition clear and raised their concerns but there was no such opportunity for Government Members. That is a great shame.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
With the leave of the Chair, I beg to move that the Committee be now adjourned.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman is on his feet and will conclude his speech. He has the Floor.
Bill Esterson
My speech would take us all the way through the lunch period, which may not be popular with Members.
The Chair
I understand that Mr Esterson will have the opportunity to make a second speech if he wants to return to the topic later in the debate. He may wish to avail himself of that opportunity.
Bill Esterson
Thank you. I will take advantage of that.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Stephen Barclay.)
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 9 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
Litter and Fly-tipping: England
(8 years, 9 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
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Seventh Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee of Session 2014-15, on Litter and fly-tipping in England, HC 607, and the Government response, Cm 9097.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. This was the last report by the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government in the previous Parliament. It was produced in March 2015, and we then had a little wait. As we flagged up in the report, we were not sure whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Department for Communities and Local Government was responsible for this issue. The DCLG Minister is in his place today, although we are told that this was a DEFRA responsibility. I am sure he will sort out that confusion when he has the opportunity to do so.
Once the report was produced, the attempts to reach an agreement between the Departments continued for nine months—rather a long time, given that Select Committees normally get responses from the Government in eight weeks. Obviously there was a general election, so one might reasonably have expected a Government response by, say, July. December is a long way on from July. Indeed, the Government’s response to our recommendations took so long that I expected it to contain a bombshell. I thought we might see a proposal to increase littering fines to a level that would halve the deficit overnight, or perhaps the Government were going to be so generous as to hypothecate the total revenue from tobacco taxes to local authorities to help with their work—but no, not in the end. To be fair to the Government, they agreed with many of our recommendations, and where they did not they gave explanations. There are one or two areas that we want to push them on, to see whether we can make progress. It is difficult to understand why it took so long to produce a relatively straightforward and generally acceptable response to our sensible proposals.
In the end, litter is not an issue that we tend to have massive party political debates about, and that is not how the Committee approached it. The report was unanimously accepted by the Committee, which is par for the course—that is our general approach to things. We did not have to struggle to get that agreement. There was clear evidence, and we made clear recommendations on it.
Litter matters to the public enormously. They do not necessarily want politicians to squabble about it, but it is one of the issues that is likely to be raised with us on the doorstep. People are distressed and often appalled by its environmental impact. They are concerned about the inconsideration of the people who drop it without any thought of the consequences, and that they, as taxpayers, have to pay for it to be cleaned up. That money, certainly in the current circumstances, could be spent better on other services that are important to them. It is an issue that also gets raised with local councillors regularly, so it is right that we wrote a report and are having a debate about it.
There are some clear areas of agreement. We called for a national strategy, and the Government agreed. It will be interesting to see how that develops and what effect it has. We recommended a national clean-up day. The Government, perhaps anticipating that, got in before us and accepted our recommendation before we made it, so that is positive. We have a Clean for the Queen day this year, which we should all encourage community groups and individuals in our constituencies to participate in. Again, there is cross-party agreement on that: everyone believes it is a good thing for communities to do. It is just a pity that it has to be done and that people drop litter in the first place. Nevertheless, that is a positive achievement.
One of the initial problems we have in looking at litter—I am pleased that the Government accepted this; we now need to see what they do about it—is that we do not know how much there is, because there is no reasonable assessment. There is the “Local Environmental Quality Survey of England”—that is a bit of a mouthful; I hope we find a snappier title for whatever replaces it in due course—but the problem is that the surveys do one of two things. Some simply look for evidence of a particular kind of litter in an area, and then have a tick-box that says, “That litter is there”, without recording whether it is one, a dozen or 100 pieces of litter, so we do not know about the incidence. Others count the amount of litter, but do not distinguish between the type—so 100 cigarette butts are recorded as the equivalent of 100 plastic bags, even though it is pretty obvious that their environmental and visual impacts are different. The Government accepted that we need to think about how better to collect data and agreed with the recommendation in our report. We look forward to hearing how they are going to do that.
There was a disagreement—not a fundamental one—between the Committee and the Government about what the cost of litter clean-up is. We said it was somewhere between £700 million and £850 million. The Government said—I understand the logic of their explanation—that local government would need to sweep the streets anyway to clean up dust and dirt that is not due to littering, so the total cost of street sweeping is not a consequence of the litter that people drop. I accept that, but on the other hand no better figure is available. That is the only figure that the Committee had to work with.
Education is important, and we want schools and others to do their bit to encourage children. It will be great to see children out on the national Clean for the Queen day, because they can then start to appreciate the consequences of dropping litter and what dealing with it entails. Of course, however well we educate, some people will not want to listen and will carry on dropping litter. They deserve to be penalised. The Committee said that we should increase the rates for fixed penalty notices. Again, the Government agreed and are going to consult on the level they should be raised to. Personally, I think—and the Committee generally supports this—that the levels should be increased significantly. There has to be a real deterrent when people are caught littering.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on introducing this important debate. He mentions fixed penalty notices, which I understand can potentially lead to criminal convictions if further steps are taken. Some local authorities might be reluctant to take those steps on the basis that they might criminalise young people. Should we perhaps consider making fixed penalty notices a civil offence?
Mr Betts
That is an interesting idea. The Committee misunderstood the position—we do not always get everything absolutely right, but we try. We said that fixed penalty notices are easy because of their civil nature, but the Government corrected us and said that they are a criminal penalty. The Government should think about the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, because that is an issue. If people are fined, we want to deter them and we want a process that is easier than going through the courts to get a fine. That could be looked at without reducing the intention to deter.
The advantage of fixed penalty notices is that the money goes back to the local authority. In the past, the Committee suggested that the Government should think about allowing money from other fines to go back to local authorities. The authority bears the costs, but the fines go to the Treasury. There is a disjuncture between the revenue from fixed penalty notices, which goes to the local authority, and fines, which go to the Treasury. Could we not have a more joined-up approach so that the local authorities, which incur the cost, get the returns from any action they take?
We then looked at the types of litter and tried to distinguish between them. Cigarettes are the most littered object. The problem is that many people do not see puffing away on a cigarette and then putting it out on the floor as littering—“It’s only a cigarette butt”—but it is. Cigarette butts are the most common item of litter. We had quite a discussion about that, and we were surprised when the then Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), said that the Department suggested to the Chancellor that part of any extra tax on tobacco products should go to local authorities. The Department dismissed that in its response, but the suggestion was made by a Government Minister. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is nodding away because he was in the Committee and heard the evidence. I do not know whether the Government changed their mind or whether—surely not—one Government Department has a different view from another. We now understand that Ministers have different views. Indeed, we are getting quite used to that idea on certain subjects. Anyway, the Minister might like to reflect on those points.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and will commend him and his Committee on the report if I am called to speak by Mr Turner in due course. I was interested to read in the report and the Government response about the difficulty of the relationship with tobacco companies. Councils did not want to get too close to them, but they were offering to assist. Will my hon. Friend elaborate on the discussions around that? It is unclear whether the Committee reached a conclusion about embracing tobacco companies, no matter how uncomfortable that might be, especially if they are going to provide some money for the clear-up, which is a significant cost to local authorities.
Mr Betts
We had a serious look at that and received a lot of evidence. We deliberated and came to a reasonable conclusion. The Local Government Association was absolutely clear in its evidence that it is signed up to the local government declaration on tobacco control and believes that that means that the LGA and local authorities must have nothing at all to do with tobacco companies. The view is that, because of the nature of tobacco and the need to get the message across, in particular to young people, that tobacco products kill, there should be no connection at all and that the tobacco industry should not get involved with democratically elected bodies. Indeed, I understand that the national health service takes exactly the same line nationally: no connection at all.
Mr Betts
I was just about to say it, but the hon. Member for Harrow East got in before me—I was reflecting on whether it was appropriate, but it obviously was.
It is a difficult issue, but the Committee—most of us are generally localists—decided that we understood the declaration and the LGA’s position, and that it was up to local authorities to make a decision themselves. We also said that if they did so, they should not allow themselves to be used in any way by tobacco manufacturers to gain any advantage or engage in any promotion of tobacco products—to give any impression that tobacco was okay because the companies were making a contribution towards a public service.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
A wide group of commercial companies work hard on picking up litter. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention Clean for the Queen earlier. Will he join me in praising Kärcher in my constituency? The company is committed to cleaning up “grot spots” around the country—I am glad to see that none of them is represented in this room, otherwise I would have to name and shame them. A clear set of companies are willing to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to the problem of litter. Bearing in mind the caveats that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, tobacco companies could join that number.
Mr Betts
The Committee did not say that no one should engage, but we placed strong caveats on any engagement, for obvious reasons. In the end, we said it was down to local authorities to make a decision, but we also thought the Government might make a contribution from the tobacco tax levies.
The other interesting thing about our discussion on the involvement of tobacco companies was that we had two Ministers—one from the Department for Communities and Local Government and one from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—who gave us completely different evidence. They sat and disagreed with each other in front of the Committee. We had two different political parties coming up to a general election, so perhaps collective responsibility was breaking down in the last Parliament, for reasons different from those in this Parliament.
Again, in the end we said it was down to local authorities, but we emphasised over and over again that tobacco companies should in no way be allowed to pay out money as a salve for their consciences and to show that they are okay and not really the bad guys because they are making a public contribution. They are not okay; they sell a dangerous product, which the House has recognised through legislation in a number of ways in recent years, and I think we all support that. We do not want to do anything to give the tobacco companies a way into the public’s good books.
The Tobacco Manufacturers Association made the interesting suggestion that tobacco litter is not that bad because portable, fold-up ashtrays mean that people do not have to drop ash. We said, “Great! Why don’t you issue them free with all packets of cigarettes?” I have not noticed that that has happened in the months since they made that suggestion. Was it just a publicity gimmick to suggest that they are not as bad as everyone makes out? It is quite a good idea, but nothing has happened. We should encourage them to consider it again if they want to do something practical to alleviate the problem.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman is speaking about tobacco companies, and I mentioned chewing gum, but my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) just reminded me of companies such as McDonald’s. Our highways are often a litter-strewn disgrace, and while there are duties under section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to keep those highways clean, there is conflict between local authorities, which have the duty, and Highways England, which is required to provide protection for local authority employees for health and safety reasons. Highways England charges for that, so highways are not being kept clean—they are cleaned only occasionally when someone complains. In my constituency, the A64 is a litter-strewn disgrace that deters the tourism that my areas relies on, yet there is no joined-up thinking about how to clean the highways. Do we need to consider that as part of the national strategy to which he referred?
Mr Betts
I understand that this is a very long road, Mr Turner.
The Committee did consider that point, and I am going to come on to fly-tipping, which often happens on highways, in addition to ordinary littering. We considered two issues about vehicles and highways. One was about the division of responsibility between local authorities picking the litter up and Highways England being responsible for safety on the highways. We suggested that responsibility for litter be transferred to Highways England after consultation. The Government said no and that they wanted to have another look at how that might work, so I will be interested to hear more details about that from the Minister. I am not saying that the Government are wrong, but we identified a problem and made a suggestion about how it could be resolved. It clearly needs a resolution, because what we have at present is unacceptable and is not working. If the Government come up with another idea, okay, but they ought to say that if their new approach does not work, they will come back and consider whether one agency should be responsible, because that is often the way to sort things out.
There is also the question of how we penalise the offence of dropping litter from cars. As I understand it, the offence is committed by the person who drops the litter, but the difficulty is that if a car whizzes past and litter comes out of it, can who dropped it be proved? The law in London is different, because the owner of the vehicle can be charged, irrespective of who throws the litter—it is for the owner to decide. The Committee suggested that that approach should apply nationally. The Government said that there was not enough evidence that the extra powers had led to an increase in fines in London, but I still urge the Minister to have a look at that option as it seems to be impossible to determine proof outside London, because if there are four people in a car and a cigarette packet or a sweet wrapper is thrown out of it, who actually threw that? We hope that the Government will consider adopting the London position.
We carefully considered the idea of taxing chewing gum to pay for the cost of clean-up. Cigarette material might be the most prevalent form of litter, but chewing gum is certainly the most difficult to clean—it is a nightmare. In the end, we said to the industry, “Look, this is the last-chance saloon. What are you going to do to help with the cost of this and the practicalities of clearing it up? Alternatively, how about producing chewing gum that is less difficult to get off the pavement if people drop it?”
The Government’s response referred to a wonderful-sounding organisation called the Chewing Gum Action Group. We hope that it is doing good work, but we would like to hear what it is going to do and how the Minister will judge its success. If, despite its work, chewing gum is still being thrown around to the same extent, with no change in the materials used in gum to make it easier to remove, and if the industry does not volunteer to take up its share of the burden, will the Minister consider alternatives? The Committee intends to reconsider the issue—and, indeed, quite a few of the points made in our report—to determine whether progress has been made.
Another big problem is fly-tipping. All the data we have, imperfect though they are, show that litter is a problem. In our report’s summary, we stated:
“England is a litter-ridden country compared to most of Europe, North America and Japan.”
The Government disagreed and said that there was no evidence for that, probably because the figures are not available, but most of us can see with our own eyes when we go to other countries that things there look better in general. However, it is absolutely clear that the problem of fly-tipping has become worse in this country. There is no doubt at all about that, because there has been a 20% increase in the previous 12 months, as we were told in evidence.
The Government accepted the suggestion of adopting fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping to add to the range of options for local authorities so that they may prosecute more simply. Fly-tipping is a serious problem, but while a builders’ merchant ought to be taken to court for a major incident such as dumping building material in a lay-by, for a discarded plastic bag, a fixed penalty notice would be the appropriate and proportionate response. It is extremely welcome that the Government will introduce such notices.
A further concern is that as local authorities get increasingly short of cash and look for savings, they charge for taking away bulky household goods. We encourage local authorities to team up with charities—a number of organisations do this—that will take away the goods, recycle and reuse what they can, and then take to the council site what they cannot. I talked to the British Heart Foundation, which operates such a scheme in certain parts of the country. That excellent scheme involves the charity recycling much of the furniture—sprucing it up, putting it on display and selling it off—and, by agreement with the local authority, taking what it cannot sell free of charge to the local council site.
I wish that more local authorities were involved in such schemes, because they could then tell people, “There is no charge for your bulky items. This organisation will take them for free.” Items could be put to good use and recycled, and the scheme is good for the charity as well, because it will make some money. The Government also welcomed that suggestion, but it could be publicised further. Perhaps the Local Government Association will do something to get the information out to its members.
We also suggested that retailers that sold a good should take the old one away free of charge, with the cost perhaps being built into the original price of the item. The Government said that existing electrical regulations meant that a company selling electrical products had to provide disposal of the old product free of charge. The catch is that the company does not have to take it away free of charge—only the disposal is free. That is a loophole, because someone then still has to pay for an old product to be taken from the home. Will the Government consider toughening up that measure? Furthermore, those regulations apply only to electrical products, not to things such as beds or sofas, which can be even harder to get rid of. Will the Government try to find a way forward?
We also suggested improving information not only about littering, but about fine collection and penalty notices. The Government accepted that recommendation and will consider how to do that.
The report, which was considered and focused on the main issues, had a generally positive response from Government, but we did not get a totally satisfactory or complete response to some of the items, which I have highlighted. I hope that the Minister will address the issues that still need to be dealt with. In short, we need better stats and a sense of how we really get to grips with cigarette, chewing gum and fly-tipping problems.
Everything, of course, has to be seen against the background that local authorities face further spending cuts. As councils concentrate on absolutely vital statutory services such as adult social care, areas such as cleaning up litter are those that can suffer and experience reductions in spending. We do not want further problems. Local authorities ought to be imaginative, so we suggested that they look at the modern bins available. Nottingham City Council has a lot of bins that give the council’s control centre an indication of when they are available for collection. That means that someone does not have to be paid to go around emptying bins that are not full, as the council will respond when a bin is full, rather than having a rota for collection at certain times. Local authorities can therefore act to meet the challenge, but there are many issues for the Government as well. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, I think for the first time. My apologies for being slightly late and missing the introductory remarks of the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), but I was at another meeting, which I was hosting.
I am one of the two surviving members of the Communities and Local Government Committee in the previous Parliament and the report we are discussing was our last one before the general election. Speaking personally, I compliment the Chair and everyone who participated in that inquiry, and all the other ones, because—as the hon. Gentleman said—we carefully considered a large amount of evidence in conflicting styles to produce a report with some comprehensive recommendations and conclusions.
We could not reach a unanimous view on one or two matters. It was not differing party views, but that some individuals in Committee had what we might describe as a more robust approach to dealing with responsibility for litter than others. I was one of them, as was the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). We had a more stringent view of what we should do to people who deposit litter on our streets unnecessarily.
There is no doubt that the problems of littering and fly-tipping are extremely prevalent throughout the UK. Locally, they are probably the most important thing to affect individuals in how they feel about the place in which they live. It is clearly a local authority responsibility to ensure that the area is clean, but in many ways we should remember that it is people who deposit litter in the first place. If people do not deposit litter, the problem goes away.
I want to concentrate on some of the issues that came out of the Committee’s report and the conclusions and recommendations on what we should do for the future. Then I will go a bit further and start thinking about some of the areas on which we took evidence, but which did not make it into the report that I hope the Government will start to look at. The first point is that actions have consequences. For example, the legislation to prevent smoking in public buildings such as cafés, shops and workplaces—which I strongly supported even though I was not in Parliament when it was happening—forced smokers out on to the streets. Previously, they would have smoked at their desks or in their places of work, but they now smoke outside and deposit their litter as and when they feel like it either on the street or—most of them—in receptacles, if provided.
As the Chair of the Select Committee said, cigarette butts are the most littered item and, as they are not biodegradable, local authorities unnecessarily spend enormous amounts of money clearing them up. I have a potential solution that is not in the report but I promote it as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. The Government should increase the levy on cigarettes and tobacco products by about 5% above the rate of inflation every year, which would add about 37p to a pack of cigarettes, and all of that money should be dedicated to local authorities for two purposes. The first would be to ensure that they have the funding to take forward their duties on public health to aid smoking cessation and ensure that people do not start smoking in the first place. As the number of people smoking reduced, that would help to reduce litter. Secondly, and equally, local authorities could use part of the funds to clear up tobacco detritus, which includes not just cigarette butts but cigarette packets, cellophane and the other elements in the packs of tobacco that cause littering problems.
We also know that when people see litter around, they are less likely to feel that they should not throw litter to join that on the ground. If local authorities clear up the tobacco butts, which tend to accumulate in certain areas—particularly around stations, bus stops and other buildings—and then blow everywhere, people will be less likely to deposit other items of litter. That is a particular consequence.
On chewing gum, I am of the strong view that when people have finished chewing their gum, they deposit it where they like. In fact, only this morning I was in a Committee Room where some pleasant individual had deposited their chewing gum under the table. Why people do that I just do not know. I remember people did it at school, but surely in the mother of Parliaments—
Bob Blackman
I have a very good memory. Surely that should not be the case in a Committee Room in the House of Commons. I could take you, Mr Turner, to parts of London where you will see the pavement littered with people’s chewing gum that has been splodged on the ground and it is almost impossible to remove it. It is unsightly and unhealthy, and it causes immense damage to the local street scene.
Almost the only way to remove chewing gum is steam cleaning or an equivalent. That is expensive, because it requires operatives and it is a lot of work, so few local authorities actually do anything about it. There clearly should be a tax on chewing gum and that money should be passed to local authorities for the specific purpose of clearing up the chewing gum deposited on our streets.
I also believe in the importance of educating young people. I strongly support the Clean for the Queen programme, which is an excellent programme, among others—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) will promote other aspects of taking action in particular areas. That is a great thing to do. We need to educate young people in particular about the importance of not littering on their streets.
Victoria Prentis
Does my hon. Friend agree that a child who is encouraged to pick up litter in a scheme such as Clean for the Queen grows up to be an adult who does not throw litter? That is very much part of the impetus behind our push for such schemes.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Encouraging good habits at a young age is definitely the way forward. One of the problems in my local area is the fast food restaurant near the school: we see from the litter how long it takes young people to eat their food as they walk back to the school. They deposit it where they choose and the consequences are littered streets and concerned residents. Even worse, some young people throw it in someone’s garden. They think, “I’ve finished with this. What do I do with it? I’ll throw it in the garden.”
On numerous occasions I have told my local authority to provide litter bins on the routes between schools and the fast food restaurants. I remember an exchange with some officers who said, “We’re not going to do that, because the consequence is the litter bins will become full and then we’ll have to pay someone to empty them.” We might think, “Hang on a minute, surely it is cheaper to do that than to clear up the litter,” but logic did not prevail in that case. I think there is a semblance of a duty—we took a lot of evidence on this—on fast food restaurants to keep the place clean.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that not all fast food outlets operate with the same disregard. In my constituency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, McDonald’s is good. It employs people to clean up around its restaurants and it organises volunteer days for its staff to do my local park. Some fast food chains take a responsible approach to the matter.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. McDonald’s is clearly a shining example of what should be done. Its food is all right—I would not say it was great, but lots of people love it.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend talks about McDonald’s being a shining example, but its products have a huge amount of packaging. If it was somehow forced or encouraged to reduce packaging, that might also help to provide a solution to the problem.
Bob Blackman
Clearly the packaging that McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants use is a matter for them, but the consequences of packaging are not limited to fast food—there are whole ranges of unnecessary packaging. However, the point is whether we should look at duties on fast food restaurants to act in the same responsible way as McDonald’s.
In my constituency we have a perennial problem with a Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-through restaurant where people drive in, park up the road, eat their chicken and throw the bones on the floor—they literally drop them out of their car windows—for local residents to suffer. Surely we can ensure that the fast food restaurants have a duty to keep their areas clear. I leave the implementation of that to the great thoughts of my hon. Friend the Minister, but we must say, “The consequences of you selling your products are the costs of clearing up.” Let us look at some solutions to that.
Mr Betts
I did not cover this point in my introduction, but the hon. Gentleman is right. My Committee gave specific praise to McDonald’s because of what it does and said all fast food restaurants, takeaways and so on should have a legal responsibility to clean up in their areas. The Government came back and said that they did not want a general duty, but that local authorities have powers to act under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 where there is a persistent problem. I wonder whether many local authorities use that power; I am not sure if figures are kept about that. Going down that route presumably has quite a considerable cost for local authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman think we ought to push the Government a little bit harder, to see what we can effectively do about this?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman who chairs the Select Committee. We have to press the Government further on this issue, and we will clearly return to it in this term. If the Government do not take action, we will as a Committee almost certainly conclude that further action is required. If the Government do not come up with a scheme, we will suggest an alternative.
Another area of social change in this country is that we are shifting to a lot more people living in private rented accommodation. People quite frequently live in such accommodation for short periods of six months to one year and then move to another area, which may involve moving from one local authority to another. That has consequences.
As a true localist, I applaud local authorities collecting domestic rubbish as they so choose. However, if we go to any London borough or any local authority up and down the country, we will find different coloured bins for different types of waste—be it general waste, dry recycled waste, food waste or garden waste. In some local authorities, there are five different bins, all with different colours. No information is supplied to individuals living in households in the area as to which rubbish they should put in which bin, except when the local authority issues the bins.
The problem is that when people move, they may then put rubbish in the wrong bins, and it is particularly people who come from another country to live in this country—I am not blaming them for this. They want to do the right thing; they want to dispose of their rubbish. They put the rubbish in the bin that they think is the right one. They may have moved from one local authority to another, so they just use the same colour bin. However, when the rubbish comes to be collected, the bin men arrive and say, “Nope. It’s the wrong rubbish in the wrong bin,” and just leave it there and move on to the next house.
As a consequence, the bins rapidly fill up and overflow, causing rats, mice and other vermin to congregate. Worse still, particularly in shared households, what tends to happen is that people say, “I’ve got to get rid of my rubbish. What am I going to do with it? The local authority hasn’t collected my bin and hasn’t told me why. What I’ll do is put my rubbish in a plastic bag, wander down to the end of the road and deposit it on the corner.” Rats, foxes, dogs, cats and all sorts of vermin then chew the bags and the rubbish goes everywhere.
My suggestion is relatively simple. When someone moves into private rented accommodation, one of their duties is to register on the electoral register with the local authority. Surely local authorities should have a duty to issue people who move into the area and register for the first time with a simple guide to how to dispose of rubbish. It is not rocket science but, to my knowledge, that is not done anywhere in the country. Some enlightened places may do it, but the reality is that it is not generally happening. It would be so easy to do. It could be one sheet that goes out when someone registers to vote, saying, “Here’s advice on how you dispose of your rubbish.” At a stroke, we would remove quite a few of the problems that occur with fly-tipping. From what I can see, a lot of fly-tipping is a consequence of people not getting their domestic waste collected.
Another associated problem is that many local authorities are now choosing to charge for the collection of garden waste. I remember introducing wheelie bins for the first time in my local authority when I was a local authority leader. We had a great song and dance about it—“Throw all your rubbish in the bin. It’ll be collected once a week and we’ll sort it out for recycling and other purposes.” It was a great idea. For the first time, garden waste was collected, free of charge. The problem is that as local authorities then separated out the various different types of service, they cottoned on to the fact that they do not have to collect garden waste free of charge. They therefore then imposed a charge on collecting garden waste, which is deeply unpopular and is a monopoly service, because no one else provides it.
The reality is that the charges are very different depending on where they are in the country. I have done a study demonstrating that in London my own borough, which is introducing the charge from April, will have the highest level. That is a deterrent straight away to people registering for the service. People who have gardens and are therefore likely to generate garden waste will dispose of their garden waste somehow. One problem with the charge is that those people will say, “Actually, I’m not prepared to pay for a service that I think should be provided by the local authority free of charge”—and has been, by the way, for a number of years—“so I’ll find another way of disposing of it.” Fly-tipping will become more prevalent as a result.
It is certainly true that where charges have been imposed, fly-tipping of garden waste in particular has increased quite dramatically. That is a consequence of charging for services that people see as part of the council tax they pay. The Government need to look at that carefully. I take the view that the charges for such services should be kept under review, because it cannot be correct that equivalent authorities are charging very different prices for the same service. Something is going wrong somewhere when that is the case.
Mr Betts
I understand the problem. It certainly caused a great deal of concern in my constituency when charges were introduced. The problem was that it is not the council that introduced the charge; it is Veolia, the contractor. Veolia fixes the charge and refuses to take instalment payments, so people have to pay it up front. That is a deterrent to people, particularly those on low incomes. There is a challenge when contractors—ones that make a lot of money out of this—introduce that sort of charge for the service.
Bob Blackman
That is a clear concern. It depends, of course, on the contract that has been set up between the local authority and the supplier. In London—I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman’s area—we have done quite a detailed study of this issue, and it is local authorities implementing the charges, not contractors. In my borough, it is a direct service—it is not even being provided by an outside contractor, which demonstrates that there is a particular problem.
Jim Fitzpatrick
To reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), there was a perversity when bulk refuse charges were introduced in Tower Hamlets, in that the concerned citizens who were reporting bulk refuse were the ones being told, “You have to pay the charge for the removal of that piece of bulk refuse,” even though it had been fly-tipped by somebody from somewhere else. Tower Hamlets had to go back to free collection of bulk refuse, because otherwise citizens would not report it out of fear that they would have to pay for the removal of something that was not their responsibility.
Bob Blackman
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. That has happened in a lot of local authorities up and down the country.
I will move on to bulky waste, to which the Chair of the Select Committee also alluded. There are duties for certain items to be collected when someone buys a replacement, but I think we will all have seen beds, sofas, garden furniture and ordinary furniture just dumped on the streets and left to rot. The reality is that much of that, and mattresses in particular, could be collected at the same time as people are buying new ones. I have seen certain local authorities that routinely go around and collect mattresses that have been left in particular areas. In areas with houses in multiple occupation, landlords will turn out the beds on a routine basis, especially when there has been a turnover of people living in those properties. When there are mattresses on the street, they have to be collected and dealt with. Surely there should be a duty on suppliers, as part and parcel of the process of delivering mattresses, sofas and other items, to collect and take away the old ones and dispose of them free of charge to the individual who is buying the new product. The Government should look at that in order to reduce costs.
The other issue with fly-tipping is that it is definitely on the increase. We have to combat it in every way, shape or form. Two types of fly-tipping are of particular concern. There is fly-tipping on the public highway, which hon. Members have mentioned, along with fly-tipping on street corners and all sorts of areas of the public highway that tend to be out of sight. People just wander along and either dump their rubbish from a car or, alternatively, dump it on service roads, whether to shops or domestic properties, as access points to garages. They are often the biggest problem of all, for the simple reason that they are on private land, so local authorities will say, “Nothing to do with us; you have to pay for that rubbish to be removed,” whereas residents say, “Well, it’s nothing to do with us. We didn’t dump it there in the first place.” The rubbish then builds up and up, till it becomes a health hazard and finally the local authority has to step in, remove it and try and identify who was responsible. It is often good luck if they find anything associated with the individual who dumped it in the first place. Often that is not possible.
I suspect this will be difficult, but we will have to look at what the duties are to collect fly-tipping on private land and whether any can be passed on to local authorities or whether there is some other way of dealing with fly-tipping on service roads. I know this is of great concern to many residents up and down the country, and there do not seem to be proper regulations to control it.
Mr Betts
To deter fly-tipping, we said we wanted to see powers to impound vehicles engaged in fly-tipping. One very positive thing that we probably ought to report—and, again, congratulate the Government on—is that they brought those regulations into force on 6 April. That was really welcome. In serious cases, a vehicle engaged in fly-tipping can be impounded and taken away, which is a really strong penalty and deterrent.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee again for making that point about a good thing that the Government have done.
All in all, this is a comprehensive report, with some simple recommendations about which most right-minded people would say, “Well, let’s implement those.” There are some dilemmas for the Government in their deliberations on fly-tipping and littering, but I would welcome the Minister’s views on how some of the ideas we have floated today can be taken forward and implemented across the country, while allowing local authorities to develop new strategies to deal with fly-tipping and littering as appropriate in their local communities. It is also about making it clear that there are duties to keep areas clean and duties on individuals to ensure that they do not dump rubbish and act in an antisocial manner.
In conclusion, it was a pleasure to work on this report. It upsets most residents across the country to see rubbish thrown everywhere. Clearly this is an area where a clean-up is necessary.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you presiding over our proceedings this afternoon, Mr Turner, just as it is to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). It is good to see the Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), in the Chamber. I look forward to their responses to the report and the Minister’s elaboration on the Government response.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee, on an excellent report. I confess that despite having read through it, I had not noticed the time gap between the inquiry and the publication of the report, and the Government’s response. I only picked that up when he commented about it in his opening remarks, and that is of interest in itself. I also read the Government response to the report with interest. I thank Allison Ogden-Newton, the chief executive of Keep Britain Tidy, Rosalind Finney, the public affairs manager of the Marine Conservation Society, and Ms Pat Wharton, who leads the British Cleaning Council, for their briefings to help me to pull together some of my comments.
I should declare that I was previously a Minister of State at DEFRA and responsible for Keep Britain Tidy —I will come on to recommendation 20 in the report in a minute. I am also now, having taken over from the predecessor of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), chair of the Tidy Britain all-party group, of which he is an active member, as is the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). Perhaps the hon. Member for Harrow East will want to join us as well in due course.
I will mention a few aspects of the key issues raised by those who sent me briefings, although I will not detain colleagues for long. A national litter strategy has been raised by Keep Britain Tidy, and the Committee’s report mentions that in recommendation 20, which opens up by saying:
“The failure to make a noticeable improvement in litter levels in the last 12 years points to a lack of vigour, if not complacency, within Government over the past decade.”
Well, I take my part of the responsibility for that and apologise to the Select Committee for not satisfying it in its analysis of where different Governments have been on this issue. It is obvious from the speech made by the Chair of the Committee and the report that this is not a party political issue. We have all failed the country and we all need to do better. The Select Committee has pointed the way and the Government are clearly accepting some of its advice.
The report goes on to refer to a point that was raised with me by Keep Britain Tidy:
“We recommend that the Government create a national litter strategy for England with a clear framework for action. This must be underpinned with a coordinating role for local councils within their respective areas.”
Paragraph 50 of the Government response states:
“We will therefore seek to work with local government and relevant stakeholders to develop a national Litter Strategy ”.
If the Minister forgives me for saying so, that does sound a little weak in terms of urgency, but I am sure that he will give us a positive explanation.
Victoria Prentis
One thing that I, for one, would like to see embedded in the national litter strategy is an annual spring clean. While that might not always be called Clean for the Queen, does the hon. Gentleman agree that something along the lines of GB Tidy—Get Britain Tidy—would be a way forward?
Jim Fitzpatrick
The hon. Lady makes a good point. Get Britain Tidy gives more motivation than Keep Britain Tidy, because I think we all recognise that there are many areas in the country—she referred to some earlier—that are not up to the standard that we would want. She therefore makes a sensible suggestion. The Government’s announcement regarding 21 March very much goes in that direction and it will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether this will be an annual event in due course.
Keep Britain Tidy also stated that the suspension of the national litter survey is a problem. When the strategy does come forward—it is due by 2018—the latest data to use as a benchmark against it will be three or perhaps even four years old, so we are losing the ability to identify where we are against where we want to be, which will make things difficult.
I commend my local authority of Tower Hamlets which, like every local authority, is trying to deal with the problem, but experiencing great difficulty. One initiative it introduced recently, which other local authorities have also introduced, was to give every bin in the borough an identification mark so that people could use a smartphone to take a picture of a full bin with its bar code, which would automatically alert the local authority that the bin is full and should be emptied. It will be well worth noting how effective this brand-new method will be, but it is a recent technology that may help because when people are using bins that they should not be using, for whatever reason, the local authority can be notified that something needs to be done.
The Marine Conservation Society has asked whether beach and aquatic litter will be included in the survey, when it emerges. In response to previous inquiries, the Government have claimed that the marine strategy framework directive covers this issue, but the MCS says that the directive’s only measure on litter covers plastic bags, which are only one aspect of litter on beaches and in aquatic areas. Will the Minister say whether more types of litter could be included?
The second main item raised by Keep Britain Tidy, which is covered by recommendations 2, 13 and 14 of the Committee’s report, is the cost of litter and the success or otherwise of fixed penalty notices, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. The key issues raised included the need for accurate collation of data and an analysis of the success or otherwise of such efforts. The Government response to the Committee’s recommendation—I am paraphrasing— said that the matter was noted, so it is not clear which way the Government will go. That does not deal with the question of whether fixed penalty notices are successful, or how much more successful they may be in due course.
The key point from Keep Britain Tidy, MCS, the British Cleaning Council and the Select Committee, which has already come through during the debate, is about messaging. Local authorities are doing their best, but we need a sense of national urgency regarding litter—the hon. Member for Banbury talked about this—because we all know that, compared with a lot of other countries, many parts of Britain are embarrassing and we must do better.
The Government should be commended, as the Select Committee does in recommendation 21, on national clean-up day on 21 March. We need national momentum, so that clean-up day, like Clean for the Queen, is to be commended. The hon. Lady recently held an excellent event in the Jubilee Room to promote Clean for the Queen and to spread the message to parliamentary colleagues, so she should be commended on her efforts.
Notwithstanding whether we have national initiatives such as Clean for the Queen, many local groups are active in this area. The hon. Lady cited one in her constituency, and my favourite in my constituency is the 2nd East London scout group, which goes out regularly to clean areas in the constituency, dragging parents, relatives, MPs and others along to help. That is a fantastic example of the sort of educational start to life that we want to see mirrored among all our young people.
Keep Britain Tidy raised two further issues with me: tobacco and litter from vehicles. The Select Committee spent quite a lot of time on these matters, as its Chair outlined, and that is reflected in recommendations 5, 16, 17 of the report. The Government and many local authorities—the Minister will tell me whether I am wrong—seem to duck the tobacco question because while tobacco causes damage to the human body, the Government do not seem to want to face up to the tobacco companies. My hon. Friend said there might be a way of using their financial power through such methods as the tax levy that the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned. Their product causes the difficulty, so they should have some responsibility, with consumers of that product, to deal with it. Recommendation 5 in the Select Committee report addresses that point.
The Select Committee commented on litter from vehicles in recommendation 16. Paragraph 35 of the Government’s response says:
“A regional working group, through the Keep Britain Tidy Network of local authorities and other stakeholders, will ensure that a strategic approach to preventing litter can be achieved.”
Keep Britain Tidy has told me that clarity in the legislation would be great, but it seems that there is more work to do. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton spoke about using a civil penalty rather than a criminal penalty to make the option of levying fines, especially on young drivers, more attractive to local authorities, which might not want to criminalise young people early in their lives for an offence that is serious in terms of the environment, but more of a misdemeanour compared with many criminal offences, even though it should be punished.
The Marine Conservation Society feel that beaches and aquatic issues have not been given sufficient attention. Keep Britain Tidy supports several of the Select Committee’s conclusions. The Committee set out a number of questions and points of concern, and it has clearly done an excellent job in raising this important issue, highlighting weaknesses, identifying points of concern, making recommendations and promoting a more strategic framework.
The Government response is slightly defensive, which goes back to the Select Committee’s criticism of all Governments over the past 12 years. Perhaps we could and should do more, but given austerity and the economic situation, the Government naturally believe that resources may not be available. The issue involves the fabric of our country, however, and investment to deal with litter could have a positive effect in many different ways.
I will end on a positive note. Keep Britain Tidy reports that Clean for the Queen, the initiative that the hon. Member for Banbury brought to the House, has been signed up to by more than 200 local authorities and 60,000 volunteers. There will be 1,000 events, so it is already a success, even though it has not happened yet. I am sure the Government’s national clean-up day on 21 March will be a success, and we look forward to leadership on that from the Minister and the shadow Minister.
The Select Committee says that the Government need to become more serious about the matter. That is very much the case, and if they set an example by getting serious, I am sure that the country will respond. I am grateful to the Committee for bringing the report to our attention.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—before he leaves the Chamber—for his contribution, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and the hon. Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) who, I am pleased to say, are remaining in their place. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee, for his eloquent introduction to this debate and for highlighting these important issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse outlined clearly some of the Select Committee’s recommendations, but you will be pleased to hear, Mr Turner, that I do not intend simply to repeat what has already been said.
Litter and fly-tipping have been, and remain, a huge problem in this country. They are a blight on England—on our roadsides, public areas and public spaces. Unfortunately, cuts to local government funding are forcing many councils to make savings by closing municipal tips, which could increase fly-tipping. The closure of the local tip in Heywood in my constituency led to great concern among residents, many of whom contacted me to share their worries that such action would exacerbate the growing problem of fly-tipping.
I welcome the Select Committee’s recommendation on penalties for fly-tipping. The introduction of a fixed penalty notice for the fly-tipping of household items, which form the bulk of the incidents, would involve the lower standard of proof required for a civil penalty. I also welcome the recommendation, to which many hon. Members have referred, that the relevant industries introduce a scheme to take away unwanted household appliances and furniture when replacements are delivered. Additionally, it is vital that councils foster partnerships with charities that are willing to collect such items free of charge, as many councils do. Just because an item is being replaced, that does not make it obsolete, and there are many excellent local charities that will find good homes for appliances and furniture that are still usable.
As many hon. Members pointed out, incidences of fly-tipping are on the increase. I am concerned that that is being exacerbated not only by councils operating fewer municipal tip sites, but by some councils, again in response to cuts in central Government funding, introducing charging for items and waste deposited at those sites. We are in a bit of a quandary. The Government want local councils to become self-financing by 2020 and are encouraging innovation to enable them to generate their own funding. Many councils will see charging for waste disposal as a method of income generation, but it must not be forgotten that that in itself could lead to an increase in fly-tipping. The hon. Member for Harrow East made a similar and very valid point in relation to councils charging for the removal of garden waste.
That is why I welcome the Select Committee’s recommendation to introduce a national fixed penalty notice for small amounts of fly-tipping, which would require the lower standard of proof required for a civil penalty. I welcome the Government’s commitment to give councils the power to tackle small-scale fly-tipping through penalty notices, as an alternative to prosecutions.
The Select Committee rightly points out that no data on incidences of litter are held centrally by the Government. I am pleased that the Government appear to welcome the idea of having access to those data and, importantly, that they say:
“we will explore ways of obtaining it without imposing an additional reporting burden on local authorities.”
I fully support the Government’s sentiment. Although they appear to be expecting local councils to do more and more with less and less, it is vital that we try not to impose additional burdens on our already hard-pressed councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East highlighted the long period of time between publication of the Select Committee report and receipt of the Government response, so I hope that the Minister can offer some explanation for that.
Litter is of great concern to our constituents, and it is right that the Government should be taking positive action. I am a great supporter of, and have participated in many, community clean-ups and litter-picks. I applaud the idea of a community clean-up day. Clean for the Queen has been referred to. Personally, I would prefer a clean for the community day, although in an ideal world, no one would drop litter and community groups could spend their time on activities that really do improve their local areas, such as bulb and flower planting.
The issue of cigarette litter was highlighted by the hon. Member for Harrow East. There is a real job to be done of educating smokers. Many of them seem to think that cigarette butts are biodegradable, but they are not—once dropped, they remain very much fixed until they are cleared away. I feel that a portion of the tobacco tax should go towards the cost of street cleaning to local councils, but I fully appreciate councils’ sensitivities about being seen to be endorsing tobacco companies in any way. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.
Bob Blackman
Will the hon. Lady comment on the solution that I raised—a tobacco duty escalator? The money would be passed on to local authorities so that they could fulfil their duties, and that would have the benefit that local authorities would not need to have anything to do with the tobacco industry, although they would be given the money that was raised.
Liz McInnes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. The Government’s response says that they will leave it up to local councils to decide whether they wish to work with tobacco companies. That is a sensible way of dealing with the matter, but personally I do not have an issue with tobacco companies putting in funding to clear up the litter that their users create, which does not show the tobacco companies in an especially positive light. An escalator could be one way of dealing with the situation, but I appreciate that other hon. Members have different views, so I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
I am in danger of doing what I said I would not do—repeating all the points that everyone has made—but the report makes valid points. I have not yet touched on the responsibilities of chewing gum manufacturers and fast food companies. The Select Committee is not yet recommending a tax on chewing gum, but it does say that,
“this is the last chance for the industry to put its house in order.”
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, I was quite entertained by the idea of the Chewing Gum Action Group, but behind that name there is some serious work to be done, including perhaps more information on packaging about how chewing gum should be disposed of—and not in the time-honoured tradition of sticking it under the school desk. I am really disappointed to hear that that practice goes on in this place as well. There is a job of education to be done not just among schoolchildren but, unfortunately, among some people here.
We have to see the situation of litter and fly-tipping against the background of cuts to local council funding, but I hope that the report’s positive recommendations can be accepted and acted on in an amicable, cross- party manner. This issue affects all our constituents, regardless of our political persuasion. As my hon. Friend said, many of the recommendations have been taken on board by the Government, and I hope that the Minister will now comment on those areas highlighted during the debate as still requiring more work and consideration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the Communities and Local Government Committee for its report on litter and fly-tipping and thank the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and other hon. Members for an excellent debate. It is one of those debates that is relatively unusual in the House, in that it is on a subject that, on balance, probably unites us more than divides us.
Littering and fly-tipping cause great concern to residents, councils and this Government. They are antisocial environmental crimes that pose risks to human health and animal welfare, spoil relationships between neighbours and their wider community, and affect the way people feel about the place that they call home. There is evidence that high levels of litter can restrict the economic growth of an area, reduce property prices and increase residents’ fear of crime. For local authorities, it is also a significant issue. It costs them hundreds of millions of pounds every year to clear litter and illegally dumped waste from our streets and public spaces. As far as this Government are concerned, they should not have to do that. Litter and fly-tipping are avoidable problems. It is simply not right that the behaviour of a selfish minority ends up blighting our landscapes while imposing costs on landowners and local taxpayers. A change in our culture is needed to get Britain back to the “green and pleasant land” that we are so renowned for across the globe.
This is about personal responsibility, which means consciously not littering, even when it is mildly inconvenient to dispose of our rubbish properly. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching. Of course there are practical ways in which the Government can help. We welcome the Select Committee’s report and agree with many of its recommendations to combat the problems of litter and fly-tipping.
Local authorities are at the heart of our communities. They deliver front-line services to the public and are vital in meeting the challenge of eradicating litter and fly-tipping. Although litter and fly-tipping are clearly problems, the majority of local authorities can be commended for the fact that they are consistent in maintaining standards. In many cases, that has even been the case during a difficult period in which local government has had to do more with less, which does not make the Government at all complacent in its determination to reduce litter and fly-tipping. We need to clean up and change people’s culture, values and attitude to their environments.
This should not be a top-down approach. The Government are committed to localism and the transfer of power to local communities to deal with litter and fly-tipping problems, which require a local approach tailored to the characteristics of the area and the community in which the problems occur. Like the rest of the public sector, local authorities have worked hard over the last five years, but they still need to be thinking innovatively about how they can make litter and fly-tipping-related savings while protecting existing street cleansing services and standards.
The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned the work in Nottingham. The same has been happening in Bath and North East Somerset, where they use Bigbelly smart bins, which are electronic-type bins that tell the council when they are full. Bath and North East Somerset Council estimates that the way the bins work—the council goes out to empty them only when they need to be emptied—has saved 390 labour hours a month, which is a significant saving. I would like more local authorities to take the same sort of lead as Nottingham City Council, and Bath and North East Somerset Council. Many councils are putting in a significant amount of money. There have been a number of different estimates of that money, but we think they are probably putting about £700 million a year into dealing with litter.
As the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned, there is pressure on the provision of social care, bearing in mind that the population is getting older, yet it is important to point out that while growing old is inevitable, littering and fly-tipping are not. In the end there is a choice, and I would much rather that councils were able very easily to make the choice to put additional money into social care provision, rather than having to put so much money into the problem of litter and fly-tipping.
The Government still have a role to play, because no matter how good and innovative councils become, they need the support and the backing of the Government to tackle the problem. During the Select Committee inquiry, the Government agreed that their role was to enable local action in three ways: setting clear overall standards for cleanliness, ensuring legal powers to enable councils to take effective action, and ensuring that costs can be passed to those responsible for causing the problem. Our immediate priorities to achieve this will deliver on our manifesto commitments to review the case for increasing the fines for littering offences and to allow local authorities to tackle small-scale fly-tipping through fixed penalties as an alternative to prosecutions. That is something that a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), have raised today, and I am glad that there is significant support for that approach.
We want to work with local government and relevant stakeholders to develop a national litter strategy. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was a little concerned about the wording in the Select Committee report, but I reassure him that we want a robust strategy to deal with litter and fly-tipping. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), and I are absolutely focused on trying to achieve a robust litter strategy and we are working very closely to do so. We want a strategy that will enable effective and co-ordinated anti-litter work across England, focusing on affordable and measurable ways to change behaviour, reduce litter and improve the local environment. That is a priority for our communities, which deserve a lasting legacy of clutter-free towns and cities, and a countryside of which we can all be proud.
We have already begun to work with producers of commonly littered items, major retailers, some of the leading charities and NGOs in the sector, and local councils. We need to do more with those organisations to ensure that we really get to grips with and tackle the problem. In addition to those immediate priorities, the Government have agreed with the Committee’s recommendation to try to make a national litter-pick an annual event.
I am delighted that so much publicity has been given to the Clean for the Queen event. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton and I have not disagreed on much, but personally I think that Clean for the Queen is a fantastic statement for us to make. However, we should not split too many hairs. The point is that on 3, 4 and 5 March, we will all come together as communities up and down the country, supporting each other to clean up those areas. I encourage any hon. Members who are not already signed up to a clean-up on that weekend to get involved. It is great to see so many hon. Members involved, and it was good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) here. She has done a lot with Keep Britain Tidy over the past few weeks to encourage hon. Members to get involved.
I note the comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee about the time it took for the Government to respond to the report. I apologise for the delay. I regret that we did not reply within a more reasonable timeframe. He acknowledged that the report was released very shortly before the purdah period and the ensuing general election, and I think he mentioned that the report cuts across several Departments. It actually cuts across many Government Departments and, although our response was positive, it was not provided as quickly as usually would be the case. I hope he takes my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned data. That is a hugely important point. We are certainly working with an advisory group. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned Keep Britain Tidy, which is part of that advisory group alongside a number of other important organisations in the area. We are trying to bring forward a package to ensure that we collect the necessary data so that the work of our litter and fly-tipping strategy is measured in relation to its success.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East mentioned fixed penalty notices, which I assure him we are carefully considering. Fixed penalty notices should be a last resort, but they are an extremely important enforcement tool in the box to make people think twice about dropping litter. We are carefully considering what we can do to increase penalties to ensure that fixed penalty notices are a significant deterrent. We will not impose additional penalties without properly consulting the public first, which is right.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned smoking litter, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—I will address his points in a moment. I agree with what the Chair of the Select Committee says about that problem. He mentioned a tobacco levy, on which the Government consulted last year. It is obvious from that consultation that if we put any sort of levy on the tobacco companies, they would pass it straight on to the end user, which we have to take seriously. Effectively, he is looking to levy an additional tax on tobacco and cigarettes that would come back to the Treasury and, through my Department, go directly to local authorities to address some of these issues. It is slightly above my pay grade to make such commitments—it is an issue for the Treasury—but his point is on the record.
Mr Betts
I was nodding across the room to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) when the Minister said that the levy would be passed on to smokers. Ultimately, they are the ones who drop the litter. A little contribution from them towards local authority costs does not seem completely unreasonable, does it?
Mr Jones
I will only say that there would be an additional cost to end users, who already contribute significant amounts to the Treasury in taxation. When that money comes into the Treasury, some of it goes to local authorities in relation to their duties. Some of that money, by implication, must be spent on addressing the problem. I am not suggesting that the points the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East are making should never be considered, but they are taxation matters, which should be considered carefully by the Treasury.
Mr Betts
I will take the Minister a little further down that road into areas that he probably does not want to go into. When we get to 2019-20 and the full localisation of business rates, there will not be any Treasury contribution towards local authorities from tobacco tax or any other form of tax. Would that not be a different situation, in which there might be a need to reconsider whether there should be some Treasury contribution from tobacco tax towards the clean-up of tobacco litter?
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister for his remarks; I am interjecting on two points. First, the cost to the national health service of smoking-related diseases is greater than the Treasury’s income from tobacco products, so the position is not balanced. Secondly, local authorities have a public duty to encourage smoking cessation and to clear up the litter caused by smoking. The issue is how they get that funding, particularly at a time when the Government have chosen to reduce funding for public health. The proposed levy is therefore a way of providing local authorities with more money to fulfil their duties.
Mr Jones
As I have said, these are matters for the Treasury. My hon. Friend has got his point on the record today, and I am sure Treasury Ministers will be listening intently to this debate and will therefore have heard what he has said.
My hon. Friend made some interesting comments about finding chewing gum under a desk. I decided to take a pair of shoes back to my home in my constituency this weekend, and when I put them in my bag this morning there was a great big piece of chewing gum on the bottom of them. As he would expect, I was not best pleased. I appreciate exactly what he says about the challenges we face with chewing gum. The Chewing Gum Action Group has been mentioned, and its work was perhaps understated. That important group is working to address these issues. The companies that produce chewing gum are members of the group. It is important that the Government engage with those companies to ensure that we are doing all we can and that they are showing and taking a lead on ensuring that their products do not end up on pavements and floors across the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned highways. There is a pilot project in the midlands that aims to enhance joint working between Highways England and local authorities, with the aim of sharing teams and assets so that they can support each other to improve our A roads across the midlands. We are carefully looking at how that is currently working. Making the Highways Agency legally responsible for collecting litter is not as straightforward as has been said—primary legislation and complicated alterations to funding arrangements would be needed. It is important that we see how the pilot pans out before taking it forward.
The idea of fines for throwing litter from cars has been mentioned, and again we will carefully consider it through the national litter strategy and enforcement. We are well aware of the problem, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned instances where people get takeaway food and drive up the road, with the rubbish ending up in a hedge, in the bushes or in somebody’s garden. That is an important point, and it is something that we need to consider carefully.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East mentioned the LGA, which has an extremely important role in this agenda. The LGA is part of our advisory group, and it will be an important organisation in getting across some of the messages that we need to get across to local authorities. Many comments have been made about reductions in spending, and obviously I am well aware of the challenges faced by local government. Those challenges have been managed extremely well over the past five years, for which I thank local government, but there is a critical point here. I mentioned earlier in my remarks that the issue is not just about the environment—the possible damage to wildlife and the fact that an area might look scruffy. It is a massive issue for local economies, because when an area is scruffy it is an indicator that the economy might not be doing as well as it could.
To return to the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee about full retention of business rates, which will happen by the end of this decade, I think that all local authorities will look to raise additional business rate. Other funding streams for councils that are becoming more and more important are additional council tax, widening the council tax base and the new homes bonus. It is absolutely in every council’s interest to ensure that it is doing its utmost to keep its area clean, tidy and free of fly-tipping for that reason alone. Effectively, it will become an investment to bring in additional revenue for councils.
I heard what the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton said about household recycling centres, which several other Members mentioned as well. It is encouraging to see many councils working with charities that collect items, even from people’s homes. It is extremely positive when items coming into recycling sites go straight into shops right next to the site; I have a very good example of that in my constituency. Goods go on sale that many people on lower incomes can easily access, and it reduces the prevalence of litter and fly-tipping.
On the point about household recycling centres and municipal tips, as the hon. Lady called them—that is the term that I have always used; in my local area we say “going up the tip”—and on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about councils charging for recycling of green waste and so on, it is obviously a decision for the local authority in question whether it wants to charge people to use a household recycling centre or to dispose of green waste. However, having experienced local government myself, I would say that those are services that local people expect to be provided, and they are concerned about it. As I said, in terms of the context of the change in how local government will be funded, I think that councils that do not think carefully about providing those services will meet challenges going forward in terms of generating the important income streams that they need.
Bob Blackman
When the Secretary of State came before the Committee to discuss these issues, we raised the point about monopoly services for which local authorities charge. We need to balance the cost of providing those services against the price that the local authority charges for those services. Given the wide disparity, will the Minister go back to his Department with the view that we need to review what is happening across local authorities to see whether there is any element of overcharging and profiting from such services that is then being used to subsidise other services?
Mr Jones
That is certainly a consideration that we have made in relation to other services controlled by local authorities, such as car parking. I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I would certainly be interested to hear any examples from hon. Members’ constituencies, if the type of practice that he described is going on to the detriment of local people.
I think that I have covered many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. I welcome the initiative in Tower Hamlets and how the council is changing its thinking about emptying bins. It is halfway to the work being done in Nottingham and in Bath and North East Somerset. However, it is welcome to see a council looking differently at how it provides services and trying to innovate.
I was also encouraged to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about his local scout groups. It is important to get younger people involved in this agenda. Again, I think that we should consider it in terms of the litter strategy. My local scout groups have been very supportive. I have done a number of clean-ups in my constituency, including a river clean-up where the scouts came in canoes and helped clean out the river that runs through my constituency. Many young people are making a positive contribution in that way.
Jim Fitzpatrick
The Minister has covered the vast majority of points that I made. The only one on which I would press him is the Marine Conservation Society comment about the inclusion of marine, beach and aquatic venues in the national strategy. I volunteer with Thames21, which does fantastic work cleaning up the Thames, and the Government support it hugely. A lot of the litter is plastic bags, but obviously there is more to litter in those environments than just plastic bags. Can he assure us that marine, beach and aquatic environments will be incorporated into the national strategy?
Mr Jones
We are considering carefully all different environments. Although some people have not been as positive about it as others, I think that the charge on plastic bags has reduced plastic bag usage significantly, by an estimated 80%. That should decrease significantly the number of bags going into our rivers and canals, and into the sea off the coastline, which must be positive, particularly given the damage that they can do to wildlife.
I will not delay colleagues any longer. I thank them for this important debate about an issue that affects many people in our communities and about which thousands and millions of people across the country feel passionate. I have sensed that when I have made comments in press articles and received correspondence from across the country. We will introduce a strong and robust litter strategy, because this Government recognise that litter and fly-tipping are antisocial, and we need to crack down on them. We are absolutely determined to get on and do so.
Mr Betts
It has been a good, constructive and generally agreeable debate, in the sense that we agreed on most of the issues. I thank the Minister for his apology, which I accept—and I am sure I can do that on behalf of the Committee. I suspect that responsibility was not totally within his Department, as he has delicately explained with reference to the complications of getting many Departments to agree on a reply.
We started with general agreement about the need for a national strategy and the national clean-up day. We can probably see the effects of the clean-up day fairly quickly; the national strategy may take a bit longer, but I am sure that the Committee will keep a close eye on it.
The Minister was right to say that local authorities are at the heart of the whole issue. They have the responsibility for dealing with litter directly or co-ordinating the activities of others who deal with it. Our recommendations were mostly directed at Government, but generally they were about asking for extra powers for local authorities, to enable them to do their job in a variety of ways. We had generally positive responses and agreement on fixed penalty notices—their extension to fly-tipping and the increase in the level of penalties—on which the Minister said there is consultation; the impounding of vehicles used for fly-tipping; and pilots on trunk roads to look at littering from cars. All those things seem to be positive ways to move forward, and the Government have responded to the Select Committee recommendations either by agreeing to carry them out—in some cases having done so already—or by looking at how they can be carried out in the future.
There are things that local authorities can do irrespective of those issues. The smart bins that we talked about, on which there is general agreement, and engagement with charities on the collection of bulky household items are among them. Individual authorities can implement them, and can learn from other local authorities. That is at the heart of localism in the end; things may be done well in one area, and other areas say, “Yes, that’s a good idea. We will do it also.”
The Select Committee will want to return to the matter and consider various issues. In the end it is one thing to debate here, but another to get improvements on littering and dealing with litter. I am sure that we will want to keep an eye on, in particular, the serious problems of tobacco littering, chewing gum, fly-tipping and fast food, which we identified as real problems. We will be interested in the Government’s progress on the trunk road issue and littering from cars, which the Minister said the Government would look at again. In the end, to be effective the Select Committee will need better data on which to monitor performance. The Minister has accepted that and I think he has a working party looking at the question. We will be interested to see what comes out of it, because it will be crucial. Although there may be anecdotal evidence, we can only really tell whether things are improving from the data that are collected. We need better data for the future.
I think we have all enjoyed the debate. I hope we have, and that it has also been constructive and useful.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Seventh Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee of Session 2014-15, on Litter and fly-tipping in England, HC 607, and the Government response, Cm 9097.
Written Statements
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Informal Foreign Affairs Council (Trade)
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Trade and Investment (Lord Maude of Horsham) has today made the following statement.
I represented the UK at the informal EU Foreign Affairs Council (Trade) in Amsterdam on 2 February 2016. A summary of those main discussions follows.
China Market Economy Status (MES)
Trade Commissioner Malmstrom presented the arguments on both sides of the EU granting China “market economy status” (MES) within the WTO and set out how to do so would change the methodology for calculating new anti-dumping measures. The Commission would carry out further impact assessment work on this matter and continue to consider the different approaches the EU could take to granting MES to China.
Discussion revolved around the need for good evidence gathering and analysis, and consideration of how to protect a sufficiently wide range of EU industries going forward from any unfair competition.
I said that if we wanted China to abide by its international obligations, then we needed to do the same. That said, the EU was right to continue to explore how to tackle unfair trade and to continue encouraging the Chinese to address domestic distortions and overcapacity, notably in the steel sector.
TTIP
Malmstrom said conclusion by the end of the Obama Administration would require us to address all but the most sensitive “endgame” issues before the summer. Progress had been better in some areas than others. The Commissioner referred to a possible “stock-take” before the summer. It was within the context of tough negotiations on procurement with the US and others that the Commission had revised its proposal for an International Procurement Instrument (IPI) which would be considered by future Trade FACs.
All member states spoke in favour of an ambitious and balanced agreement. I said the US seemed genuine about wanting a deal this year and that we should seize the opportunity lest it disappear for some time.
The WTO Agenda
The Commissioner said that the outcome of Nairobi had surpassed expectations, demonstrating that the WTO could still deliver. Discussions in Davos had confirmed this view. It was in the EU’s interest to try to reinforce the multilateral agenda but there was a need for debate on which issues to pursue and how. The Commissioner mentioned digital trade and e-commerce, investment and competition as possibilities, preferably for multilateral negotiations; open plurilaterals were the next best option. Member states broadly welcomed the Commissioner’s assessment.
Member states also underlined the importance of WTO members ratifying and implementing of the agreement on trade facilitation, agreed at the Bali Ministerial in 2013. Around a further 40 ratifications are needed for the new agreement to enter into force.
[HCWS552]
Pre-Competitiveness Council
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) has today made the following statement.
The Competitiveness Council is taking place in Brussels on Monday 29 February. The Council will discuss matters relating to the internal market and industry. There will be no discussion of research, innovation or space. I will be representing the UK.
There are no legislative items on the agenda for this Council.
The first item will be a “competitiveness check-up” during which the Commission will give a presentation on the state of play of the real economy, focusing on start-ups, scale-ups and SMEs.
The next item is a policy debate on the circular economy package. This issue will be discussed in parallel by the Environment Council on 4 March.
We then expect to receive a presentation by both the Commission and the presidency of the Council of the EU (“the presidency”) on the steel industry before an exchange of view among member states. This item follows from the stakeholder conference on energy intensive industries which was held on 15 February and itself was an action arising from the extraordinary Competitiveness Council on steel in November 2015 last year. Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, the right hon. Anna Soubry, represented the UK at the conference and sought faster action by the Commission to deal with unfair trade practices. Single Market and Industry Commissioner Elzbieta Bienkowska underlined that the Commission did not tolerate practices such as dumping and would continue to use trade defence instruments where necessary.
The next item on the agenda is presentation by the presidency on the European semester and the implementation of country specific recommendations to tackle barriers to growth. The discussion is likely to focus on how recommendations can help support the competitiveness agenda.
The final substantive item on the agenda is a policy debate and adoption of the Council conclusions on the single market strategy for services and goods.
There are four any other business items on the agenda: information from the presidency on the state of play of the unitary patent and unified patent court; information from the presidency on patents and plant breeders rights; information from the Commission on the current state of play of the renewed framework for transatlantic transfers of personal data (EU-US privacy shield) and an update from the Commission on the current legislative proposal of cross-border portability.
Our objectives for the Competitiveness Council are to:
Ensure that it gives a strong steer to the Commission that rapid and ambitious implementation of the single market strategy is a priority; and build on the discussions regarding the steel sector held at the extraordinary Competitiveness Council (November 2015) and stakeholder conference on energy intensive industries.
[HCWS553]
Multinational Peacekeeping: Egypt
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
The UK will deploy a squadron of Royal Engineers to provide short-term engineering support to the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO), a non-UN multilateral peacekeeping organisation in Egypt. The MFO was created by an agreement between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel to monitor the terms of the 1979 Treaty of the Peace and continues to make an important contribution to peace and stability in the region. The deployment begins in March 2016 and will involve approximately 100 personnel from the Corps of the Royal Engineers carrying out a range of infrastructure improvement works at the MFO main operating base in Sinai for up to 12 weeks.
The UK has a long history of supporting the MFO, and currently provides the MFO with an Engineer Officer of the rank of Major to serve on the Force Commander’s Staff.
In the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, the Government strengthened the UK’s commitment to international peacekeeping. This deployment further underlines our support to regional peace and security.
[HCWS555]
Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Councils
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 15 February and I attended the General Affairs Council on 16 February. The Foreign Affairs Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the General Affairs Council was chaired by the Dutch presidency. The meetings were held in Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2016/02/15/
In her introductory remarks Ms Mogherini welcomed the application from Bosnia for its application for EU membership and urged Bosnia to maintain the pace of reforms. On Libya, Ms Mogherini welcomed as a positive development the presidency Council’s revised list of Cabinet Ministers. Ms Mogherini also updated the Council on the recent meeting in Munich of the middle east peace process quartet. She also welcomed the launch of NATO’s maritime operation in the Aegean.
Climate Diplomacy
The Council underlined the importance of European climate diplomacy in encouraging implementation of the global agreement on climate change reached in Paris in December 2015. It set out the parameters for a 2016 climate diplomacy action plan, prioritising implementation of the Paris agreement and addressing the causes of climate change.
Moldova
The Council discussed the situation in Moldova and adopted Council conclusions on the reforms Moldova needed to carry out in line with its association agreement. In discussion Ms Mogherini emphasised the need for the EU to refrain from taking sides or intervening directly in Moldova’s internal affairs.
Syria
The Council discussed the political, security and humanitarian situation in Syria. Ministers were briefed on the outcome of the Syria donors conference held in London on 4 February, and the international Syria support group (ISSG) meeting in Munich on 11 February. The Foreign Secretary made clear in an early intervention that Russia had the power to end the violence and bring the Syrian regime to the negotiating table. He warned that the situation in Aleppo risked creating a massive humanitarian crisis and a new wave of migration. He highlighted the importance of implementing the outcomes of the London conference, and praised the commission and member states for their generosity. The financial pledges and commitments to provide education and jobs to Syrian refugees was vital.
Lunch with the Lebanese Foreign Minister
Over lunch, Ministers exchanged views with the Lebanese Foreign Minister, Gebran Bassil, on the situation in Lebanon and the region, including the refugee and migration situation. The Foreign Secretary emphasised the need to focus both on humanitarian and development support. Member states expressed support to Lebanon, in particular for hosting over 1.1 million refugees, and to the Lebanese armed forces for maintaining stability. Member states also urged Lebanon to break the political deadlock in regard to the presidential vacuum.
Belarus
Council conclusions were adopted on Belarus. In conclusion Ms Mogherini said EU-Belarus relations had for many years been trapped in a cycle of hope, disappointment, sanctions and difficult engagement. However, trends had been more positive over the last few years, including on Ukraine and important, albeit limited, steps on human rights and democracy. The Council reached a political decision not to extend restrictive measures for 170 individuals and three companies whose listings are currently suspended. However, it left in place the arms embargo and restrictive measures for four individuals involved in unresolved disappearances.
Ministers agreed without discussion a number of measures:
The Council adopted conclusions on climate diplomacy.
The Council adopted conclusions on EU priorities at UN Human Rights Fora in 2016.
The Council adopted conclusions on Burundi.
The Council adopted conclusions on Somalia.
The Council approved the EU’s position regarding the agenda set for the 14th meeting of the EU-Kyrgyz Republic Co-operation Council.
The Council prolonged EU restrictive measures against two persons and one entity in Zimbabwe until 20 February 2017, while removing the names of 78 persons and eight entities from the list of those targeted by the measures.
The Council set a financial reference amount of €825,000 to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EU Special Representative for Human Rights from 1 March to 28 February 2017.
The Council extended the mandate of the civilian EU integrated border management assistance mission in Libya by six months, until 21 August 2016.
The Council adopted the draft European Union programme of exercises and exercise-related. activities under the CFSP 2016-20.
General Affairs Council
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2016/02/16/
The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 16 February 2016 focused on follow up to European Council conclusions, preparation of the February and March European Councils and the inter-institutional agreement on better regulation.
European Council Follow up and Preparation of the February European Council
The GAC prepared the agenda for the European Council on 18-19 February, which the Prime Minister attended. The agenda included the UK’s EU renegotiation, migration and eurozone recommendations as part of the European semester process. I emphasised that more work needed to be done before the February European Council on both renegotiation and migration. On migration, I called for a more strategic approach and a focus on full implementation. I also highlighted the contribution made by the London conference on Syria and called for pledges made at the conference to be honoured.
Preparation of the March European Council
The GAC also briefly prepared the agenda for the European Council on 17-18 March, which the Prime Minister will attend. The agenda will again cover migration and the European semester. The Council noted that discussion would also flow from outcomes of the February Council.
Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Regulation (IIA)
The presidency updated the GAC on the ongoing IIA negotiations, with a view to a more detailed discussion at the March GAC.
Under any other business, Bulgaria updated the GAC on the recent blockades by Greek farmers at border checkpoints on its border with Greece.
[HCWS551]
State of Policing: England and Wales
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Yesterday, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary laid before Parliament his annual assessment of policing in England and Wales in accordance with Section 54 of the Police Act 1996. Copies are available at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic and in the Vote Office.
Today, HMIC has updated its website with the judgments from the 2015 Police Efficiency, Effectiveness and Legitimacy (PEEL) inspections. This is the first full PEEL assessment that has been published and it forms a key element of HMIC’s role in shining a light on police performance and informing the public about performance across a broad range of policing activities. The information is available at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic.
I am very pleased to see that more than half of forces have been judged as “good” or “outstanding” across all three key areas. Those forces that have received an “outstanding” judgment should be congratulated for the service they provide to the communities they serve.
I am, however, disappointed to see that so many forces are judged to “require improvement” for at least one of the key areas. Police and Crime Commissioners must hold Chief Constables to account for delivering high quality policing that meets the needs of communities. Those communities will expect action to address the areas for improvement identified by the inspectorate and will, I am sure, be looking for strong improvement over the coming year.
[HCWS554]
Turks and Caicos Islands
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)
I wish to bring the House up to date with respect to the loan guarantee from the Department for International Development (DFID) to the Turks and Caicos Islands Government (TCIG).
On 28 February 2011, my right hon. Friend, the then Minister of State for International Development (Alan Duncan) informed the House that DFID had finalised a guarantee in favour of Scotiabank (Turks and Caicos) Ltd to provide TCIG with access to a maximum capital amount of US$260 million over five years. He argued that the assistance would allow TCIG to implement budget measures which would lead to achieving a fiscal surplus in the financial year ending March 2013.
I am pleased to announce that on 22 February TCIG repaid its remaining borrowing under this guarantee on schedule and with an outstanding borrowing need of just US$28 million. It was able to raise this amount without further recourse to the UK Government for support and is expected to repay that loan over the next three-and-a-half years.
TCIG has progressed from deficits of US$77 million in financial year 2010-11 and US$29 million in 2011-12 to a surplus the following year and strong surpluses thereafter. TCIG and the TCI public service had to make a number of difficult decisions and sacrifices. Financial management and oversight has been strengthened. Essential investment was maintained, including an expansion of the international airport that has allowed a significant increase in flights from US cities. The successful conclusion of DFID’s guarantee is a credit to the resolve of the TCI public service, TCIG, the Governor’s Office and UK-financed technical experts.
[HCWS550]
Offender Management
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
I would like to provide the House with an update on the progress of our electronic monitoring programme which will introduce new satellite tracking technology to improve the supervision and management of offenders and suspects.
This is a huge opportunity to reduce reoffending, cut costs for taxpayers and keep the public safe.
That is why we are committed to delivering a new generation of tags through contracts designed to encourage innovation, deliver an end-to-end system for monitoring offenders and provide for future technological developments.
With this new technology we can be creative and look at how we can use satellite tags to devise new sentencing options for the courts. We want to use technology to make sure we not only deliver the punishments that society rightly expects but also improve supervision in the community and support offenders to change their lives.
The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), announced to the House on 13 July last year that there had been significant problems with this programme, leading to considerable delays. As a result, we initiated a review into the programme, looking at how to get the programme back on track. This review examined progress made on the programme to date and how best electronic monitoring technology can meet our ambitions for the future, and considered the experience of other jurisdictions around the world that have developed GPS tagging schemes.
Developing bespoke tags has been challenging and it is now clear that it will be more appropriate to pursue our goals using off-the-shelf technology which is already available. That is why the Ministry of Justice will be terminating our contract to develop a bespoke tagging product with Steatite Ltd and will shortly begin a new procurement process for proven tags already on the market.
This decision will mean we can proceed with wider changes to the way we manage the programme. We will simplify our approach in order to meet the challenges of technical and business integration and continue to drive and monitor delivery from the other suppliers.
This remains a challenging programme, which we will continue to keep under review.
As the Prime Minister announced during his speech on prison reform on 8 February, we will begin pilots later this year which will inform how we use GPS tracking technologies to best effect in the future. These pilots will be run in a variety of settings in conjunction with criminal justice partners and will be designed to test how GPS technology is used and how it affects behaviour. The pilots will be independently evaluated and the results will inform policy decisions on the future use of this important tool.
Furthermore, following the conclusion of the pilot in south London of sobriety tags as part of an alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement, the Secretary of State for Justice has approved the expansion of the scheme to the whole of London to give courts in the capital the means to tackle the damaging effects of crime committed while under the influence of alcohol. An evaluation of sobriety tagging in London will inform our decisions about wider national roll-out.
[HCWS549]
Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice, Lord Faulks QC, has made the following written statement.
I have today laid the draft Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations (“the draft Regulations”) before both Houses of Parliament. The draft regulations have to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before they can be made. Subject to that approval being given, I intend to make the regulations without delay. I will announce the commencement date of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) as amended by both the Insurance Act 2015 and the regulations in due course but the date will not be earlier than three months after the regulations have been made.
[HCWS556]
House of Lords
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tax Treaties: Developing Countries
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many tax treaties with developing countries are currently under negotiation, and what principles underpin the United Kingdom approach to those negotiations.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the UK is currently at various stages of discussions with six countries classified by the United Nations as developing countries. The UK’s starting point in negotiations is based closely on the OECD model double taxation convention. Some developing countries prefer to follow the United Nations model, the provisions of which differ in some areas from the OECD model. The UK has agreed to adopt some of those provisions in its treaties.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, we agree in this Chamber regularly on the need to improve economic activity and tax collection in the developing world, yet tax treaties can regularly count against that objective. A new report this week by ActionAid shows that Britain has some of the most restrictive tax treaties around the world, in particular that with Malawi. That treaty was signed in 1955 by Sir Gilbert Rennie, the then governor of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and Rab Butler, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is surely now time to revise that treaty, improve tax collection in Malawi and therefore improve its own economic governance.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord is right. We want to achieve the same thing—to help those developing countries where we can. There has been a broadly bipartisan approach to this across the years. As for Malawi, this matter was addressed way back in 2010. Our aim is to have new double taxation agreements with developing countries where we can. There have been particular problems with Malawi that are not concerned with the detail of the treaty but with some of the more diplomatic issues. It is largely completed now but, as I say, there are some Foreign Office issues.
In general, it is our policy to conclude treaties with developing countries, and all new treaties that we manage to sign—these are bilateral treaties, so it takes two to tango—will include anti-abuse measures, exchange-of-information arrangements and assistance with the collection of taxes in both countries.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, given that we are preparing for the anti-corruption summit that the Prime Minister will chair in London in May, are we feeding the question of updating our tax treaties with developing countries into preparations for that? A lot of the loss to developing countries in terms of tax avoidance is filtered out through various corrupt practices. At the same time, are we considering in our relations with our own Overseas Territories pushing for greater transparency in the money that goes through the Overseas Territories, which is also closely related to this issue?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Of course, we are trying to increase transparency. As the noble Lord will know, in our presidency of the G8, we led on international anti-tax evasion measures and we continue to work with the OECD. We were the first to sign the agreement for international exchange of information. As far as the anti-corruption summit is concerned, that is certainly something we will do. One of the problems, however, is that just increasing taxes in developing countries is not a silver bullet because of corruption: the tax that is raised has to go to the right places.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, if there is one area that requires joined-up government, it is this. Of course, the Department for International Development, with its 0.7% budget, should be involved in these discussions because, as in the case of Malawi, you could be taking away with one hand and putting in with the other. Has DfID been involved in all these negotiations and will they be linked to the delivery of the sustainable development goals? Never mind the Rhodes statue—surely it is time that the Malawi agreement came falling down.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
DfID is involved in the consultations that the Treasury has every year on which countries should be involved and on new taxation agreements to be brought forward. It holds discussions on which goals should be taken forward, but the department is not involved in the individual negotiation of tax treaties, which is for the experts on taxation in the Treasury. It also helps to pay for tax education in developing countries, and the Government have doubled the amount that they are prepared to spend on this through DfID. We think development aid should be controlled and administered through DfID, subject to proper governance arrangements in keeping with our development strategy.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, the Government rightly take considerable pride in having stood by their 0.7% target, and I am sure we all applaud that. We may have arguments about how it is spent, but we applaud it. However, does the Minister accept that there is real urgency about this matter because it is impossible for developing countries to make a success of their economies, and thus provide the context in which that 0.7% can be well spent, unless the strategic fiscal and financial matters are given priority?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree with the noble Lord and that is why we are actively seeking to update our tax treaties, particularly with developing countries. All modern tax treaties include anti-abuse measures and provide for an exchange of information so that we can bring them up to date and thus enable those countries to increase their tax rate, but it must be remembered that individual developing countries are also aware of the effects on investment of changing their local tax rates.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is particularly embarrassing that companies such as Google are using places such as Bermuda to avoid paying tax on sales in the United Kingdom, particularly since Bermuda is one of our overseas territories and not an independent country? What are the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Government doing to stop this disgraceful tax avoidance?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The Government are leading on making sure that there is international agreement on this. The noble Lord may shake his head, but we used the presidency of the G8 in 2013 to initiate the G20 and OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, which will better align the taxation of profits. As the IFS has said, it is literally impossible for one Government to do something by themselves. That is why we need international agreement to determine where tax should be paid, and we agree that it should be paid fairly in the countries where it is due.
Government Contracts: Steel Industry
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, when steel is required for a government contract, they will specify that it be British.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to implementing measures that will address any barriers that prevent UK suppliers of steel from competing effectively for public sector contracts in line with EU legislation. All departments are now required to implement the new guidelines on how government buyers should source steel for major projects so that the true value of UK steel is taken into account in major procurement decisions.
Lord Hoyle (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why we did not support the proposal of the European Commission to raise the tax on imported Chinese steel to 66%, which not only would have put it in line with the United States but would have brought stability to the British steel industry and security for British steelworkers?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The initiative that the noble Lord referred to is one that we welcomed in the sense that it wished to modernise tariff proposals, but we could not accept the removal of the lesser duty rule, which ensures that unfair trade practices are addressed without imposing disproportionate costs. We have also supported other EU initiatives on wire rod, seamless pipes and tubes, and rebar, as regards Chinese dumping.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that far more steel is imported from other EU countries than from China, and that if the Government were to do what the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, wishes them to do, we would have to leave the European Union?
Lord Bridges of Headley
Blow me down with a feather: my noble friend is wanting to leave the European Union. That is a surprise at quarter past 11. I am sure that he is right about his facts. The challenge at the moment is obviously Chinese steel. Chinese excess steel capacity is estimated to be roughly double the EU’s annual steel demand and 25 times the UK’s steel production. That is the real challenge we face.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, on the assumption that the Government made speedy and early representations to the European Commission regarding the dumping of Chinese steel, are they satisfied that the Commission has acted effectively and promptly to protect the British steel industry?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, there is always more that we can look towards the EU to do. For example, we are pleased that the European Commission is investigating where there is evidence that state support for steel industries is not compliant, as regards Italy and Belgium. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was one of the signatories to the letter to the European Commission only a few weeks ago that called for further action.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I shall follow up the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—without sharing his conclusion. Will the Minister accept that some of our continental country friends seem to be better at protecting their steel industries than we are? I take the point made by other noble Lords on dumping of Chinese steel. Will he also indicate what the Government are prepared to do to meet the requests from the steel industry on energy costs?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I shall take the final point first. The Government are addressing the request for energy costs in one of the five prongs of their action to help the steel industry, which we all wish to do. As regards the EU, the noble Lord makes a valid point. I just add that, despite the widely held view that UK public procurement is more open than that of other EU member states, European Commission studies show that UK firms win more than 95% of UK contracts advertised EU-wide.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, does this Question not have wider resonance? The Government and public authorities in this country control about 40% of GDP spending. If the Government really wanted to back British industry—including British steel, which we would support—and help British workers, why will they not also ensure that our SMEs have a proper chance to bid for government contracts and require companies that are awarded government contracts to employ high-quality apprentices, as we did for the Olympics?
Lord Bridges of Headley
Those are valid observations. The public policy procurement note, which I have in front of me, makes the point that private companies should advertise through the supply chain when those contracts are available and make sure that British SMEs are able to bid for them. The contribution that companies make to apprenticeships is also highlighted in that public policy procurement note.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, not absolutely right: is it not the case that the masochistic energy policy pursued by the British Government at present leads to a carbon price floor five times the size of the carbon price in the rest of the European Union? Is that not crazy? What are the Government going to do about it?
Lord Bridges of Headley
That is slightly going beyond my ken, my Lords. As regards the energy costs that the steel industry is looking for, £100 million will be saved over the financial year and £400 million by the end of this Parliament, thanks to the action that the Government are taking to give the industry relief.
Lord Watts (Lab)
If the Chinese are found to have been dumping steel in the UK, what action will the Government take to penalise them for doing so?
Lord Bridges of Headley
Let us wait and see. These investigations are obviously under way as we speak.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recently announced that the Chinese were going to invest in Hinkley Point power station. Will a condition of that be that Chinese steel and other products are used in its construction?
Lord Bridges of Headley
That is a very good point, my Lords. Responsibility for the construction of Hinkley Point C rests with EDF rather than the Government. The project will require hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel and EDF has made it clear that it expects a large proportion of that to come from UK companies. The construction and operation of Hinkley are expected to create 25,000 employment opportunities and aim to create 1,000 apprenticeships.
Armed Forces: Future Force 2020
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what specialist skills have been recruited into the Armed Forces as a result of the Future Force 2020 programme.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, Future Force 2020 has delivered a wide range of specialist skills and capabilities to the Armed Forces. In the Army, this includes the creation of 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade and 77th Brigade, comprising integrated regular and reserve units capable of delivering specialist capabilities such as cyber, linguists and cultural experts. We continue to recruit the individuals we need with specialist skills and, through our world-class training programmes, train both new and existing service personnel to meet military requirements.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
As ever, the noble Earl comes to the House displaying a sense of calm and confidence, for which he is greatly admired and respected.
Lord Touhig
Truthfully. But I have to tell him that the Government have admitted that there is a skills shortage in Britain’s Armed Forces. Indeed, they spelled out their preferred solution for solving the problem. In a debate on the Defence Reform Bill in 2013, the then Defence Secretary, Mr Hammond, said that the recruitment of reserves was intended to add specialist skills to our Armed Forces because they were easier to recruit from among the civilian workforce. Can the Minister name another country in the world that depends on civilian trained reservists to fill the skills gap in our Regular Armed Forces? Is it still the Government’s intention to pursue this policy? If it is, how is it going?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it makes absolute sense to look to our reserves to house some of the deep specialties that the Armed Forces are looking for. It makes sense because the reserves can deliver capabilities that can be safely held at lower readiness, which provides access to skills that are best developed and maintained in the civil sector or are not practical or too costly to retain in full-time military service. A good example of that is cyber, although there are others, such as language intelligence analysts. We are seeing the success of that policy. Indeed, on recruiting reservists more generally, we are on track to achieve our targets.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, now that the recent period of high operational deployment has concluded—at least perhaps temporarily—will the Minister reassure the House that, within Future Force 2020, progress is being made towards recruiting sufficient regular and perhaps reserve medical specialists in order that the Defence Medical Services can meet their obligations in the future, and in particular that we are recruiting sufficient mental health specialists so that our serving soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have 24/7 mental health cover?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there are a number of pinch points in the armed services, but, broadly speaking, they are in areas where there are skills shortages in the wider economy. Medical expertise is one of those skills, but there are also areas specific to military organisations, such as logistics and intelligence. We are taking a multifaceted approach to tackling those shortages—for example, financial retention incentives, extensions and continuance of service, targeted recruitment incentives and a direct entry scheme—but there is no single bullet. I am aware that medical services represent a challenge, but one that I think we are slowly winning.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, it no doubt makes sense to leverage the private sector, especially in a fast-changing environment such as cyber, as the Minister said, but it raises a question, does it not? If we are relying on reservists, who by definition are not always available, to provide essential skills, who is providing the skills for the skills gap when they are not available?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will know, the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have an approach whereby they tend to train those already in regular service, but there is also a reliance on reserves. It is a question of getting the balance right in each discipline.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, surely the answer to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Touhig—about which country is making use of specialist reserves—is the United States. The National Guard makes very great use of reserves—far greater than we do.
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course, at the moment we have a much more flexible set of arrangements to integrate regulars and reserves than we did in the past. We can call up reservists at very short notice. Cyber is, once again, a good example. It is a discipline that often allows lateral entry at a more senior rank than would be the norm for general applicants on first joining. Indeed, the Royal Marines have a cyber specialisation to provide the maritime element of the joint cyber unit. That specialisation is formed from qualified practitioners recruited from industry and academia.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, we all recognise that cyber poses a great threat to our security. Will the noble Lord tell the House how many cyber experts and trainees have been recruited to the Reserve and Regular Forces, and whether their recruitment is on target?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I think that the House is signalling that it wants to hear from the Cross-Benchers.
Lord Boyce
My Lords, a skill set for which there is an ever growing need is, of course, engineering, especially nuclear engineering. Will the Minister say what progress has been made with industry to ensure a flow of that talent between industry and the services, particularly for those who have left the services and joined industry and then been brought back into the services to help out?
Earl Howe
The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. On nuclear engineers, we have adopted what we call an enterprise approach, which essentially means working with the wider defence industry to better share experience and best practice and to develop career management, manning and access to the key skills that we need to create a more attractive career path for nuclear engineers. There are other elements as well. We need to have proper staged financial incentives, and we have retention incentives for those already working for the Royal Navy. There is no single answer, but I think that this is the way ahead—in particular, working closely with university and technical colleges to support the development of those skilled individuals.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, will the Minister write to the House about the recruitment of people with desperately needed modern language skills—linguistic skills—which he mentioned in his first reply? This area is neglected, but it is important that we improve our language skills in our engagement.
Public Bodies: Israel Boycotts
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice they have given to local authorities and other public bodies concerning boycotts of goods and services from the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, on 17 February, the Government published procurement guidance for public authorities on existing policy that has been in place for many years under successive Governments. The guidance makes it clear that boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate, outside where formal legal sanctions, embargos and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government. It is not an Israel-specific policy.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
Knock me down with a feather, my Lords, if I was not expecting that reply. Is the Minister aware that the Foreign Office advice of July 2015 on overseas business risks in the Occupied Palestinian Territories said:
“EU citizens and businesses should … be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in … settlements”—
in the Occupied Territories, and—
“should seek … legal advice before proceeding”?
How does that equate with the advice that we received last week?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I can easily tell the noble Baroness. Paragraph 2.4 of the advice says:
“The UK Government is deeply committed to promoting our trade and business ties with Israel and strongly opposes boycotts.”
This is the Foreign Office advice, and the Cabinet Office advice sits alongside that.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Has the Minister had a chance to check what the Prime Minister said yesterday in answer to a Question about settlements? He said that,
“the first time I visited Jerusalem … and saw what has happened with the effective encirclement of East Jerusalem—occupied East Jerusalem—I found it genuinely shocking”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/16; col. 297.]
Did the Prime Minister not speak for many Members of both Houses and indeed of all parties when he said this? Is it not time that we move beyond general expressions of dissatisfaction with Israeli settlement activity and took more concerted international action?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point, but this is about the role of local authorities. I would gently say to him, with due respect, that local authorities should not pursue their own municipal foreign policy which contravenes international trade agreements. They should instead focus on local issues. The clue is in the name as regards local authorities.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
In the light of local government guidance, could the Minister say what action the boycott movement has taken with regard to the Russian invasion of Crimea—I apologise for asking this of a Cabinet Office Minister—the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus and the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord raises lots of issues, but this is about boycotts being conducted by local authorities, which I would argue are counterproductive. They widen gaps in understanding, poison and polarise debate, and block opportunities for co-operation and collaboration.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I was in Israel last week as a guest of the Israeli Government when my right honourable friend Matt Hancock announced this guidance that he was giving to local authorities. As both Israel and the United Kingdom are members of the WTO, surely it is illegal to impose these boycotts. They would actually be against the law.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend is absolutely right. Such boycotts would be open to judicial review.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
Hearing what the Minister has said about boycotts, can he reassure the House on behalf of his Foreign and Commonwealth Office colleagues that we and our European partners lose no opportunity to draw the attention of the Israeli Government to the illegality of their settlement policy and the damage which it is doing to the prospect of a two-state solution, which is surely in the interests of both Israel and Palestine?
Lord Bridges of Headley
Yes, my Lords, and let me reassure the noble Lord that the Government remain completely committed to a two-state resolution to secure lasting peace in the Middle East. The best way to achieve that is by diplomacy and negotiation.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, given that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St John’s, has repeatedly said at that Dispatch Box that the settlements are a contravention of international law, that we deplore them and that they should not be there, how does it follow that it is illegal or impossible for a local authority to take action in response to those repeated statements by refusing to trade with those very settlements?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, to repeat what I said at the start, the guidance merely clarifies and reminds contracting authorities of their obligations under the WTO government procurement agreement, to which the EU is a signatory, which has been in place since 1996 and which the Labour Government and the coalition Government both upheld.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I think that the House wishes to hear from my noble friend Lady Eaton.
Baroness Eaton
Thank you. Three-quarters of Palestinian exports are destined for Israel and Israeli goods account for two-thirds of the West Bank’s imports. Does the Minister agree that a boycott of West Bank goods would be detrimental to the Palestinian economy?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I just wish to repeat what I am saying all along: this guidance is not about Israel per se. While what my noble friend says may have validity, I would say that boycotts are counter-productive and should not be taken by local authorities unless there is already a government action in place.
Privileges and Conduct Committee
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That the 4th Report from the Select Committee (Investigations and members leaving the House or taking leave of absence; Guidance on participation in proceedings) (HL Paper 95) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Laming)
My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I will also speak to the second Motion. The first part of the report of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct clarifies the position on investigating alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. The code does not apply to former Members; nevertheless, it has been unclear whether a former Member could be investigated for an alleged breach committed when he or she was a Member of this House.
The recommendation is to make it clear in the guide to the code that such an investigation may not take place because there would be little point to it. Even if such an investigation resulted in a finding of a breach of the code, however, there would be no suitable sanctions available to the House—the reasons being that the strongest sanctions of suspension and expulsion could not be imposed on someone who was no longer a Member of the House. But colleagues will understand that the status of Members on leave of absence is different from that of former Members, because those on leave of absence may return to the House. The committee therefore recommends amending the guide to make it clear that an investigation may take place on a Member on, or seeking, leave of absence if the alleged conduct occurred when the Member was not on leave of absence.
The second part of the report relates to guidance on when a Member may participate in proceedings in which that Member has a financial interest. The current text has resulted in some uncertainty. This has sometimes meant that Members with significant expertise on a subject have been unable to participate in business in which their expertise would benefit the House or a Select Committee. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct proposes replacing this guidance with a clear statement that Members may participate in business in which they have a financial interest, but in doing so they should of course ensure that their personal interests do not conflict with their public interests. A similar change is recommended in respect of participation in Select Committee work. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Chairman of Committees for introducing this. It is important that, whenever we get reports from committees, there is an introduction and an explanation of why the recommendations are being made and how the issue has been considered by the committee. So much of what happens in this place is considered by committees and put through here on the nod, so that, with respect, I must say that probably the vast majority of Members know nothing about it. They do not know why it is being recommended and do not know about the initiative, motivation or background behind it. That is why it is very important not only that such things should be introduced—as this has been—but that we can have a debate and ask questions.
I have specific questions. On whose initiative was the first matter put on the agenda of the Privileges and Conduct Committee? What was the motivation behind it? Were any matters—any instances or examples—brought to the attention of the committee that made this a matter that it should have to consider?
I have similar questions in relation to the second matter. Have any matters arisen? Have there been any complaints or suggestions of problems? Have any Members with particular interests said that they are unable to participate in a debate because of their interests? We need to know why this is before us. I am not saying I disagree with it, but we need to know on whose initiative and with what motivation these matters were considered by the committee and then recommended to us today.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I would just ask for a very small clarification from the Chairman of Committees. I may be wrong, but as I understood it, he said that if a Member on leave of absence was being investigated, it would have to be for something that he or she had done while they were not on leave of absence. But it seems to me that if a Member is on leave of absence, he or she remains a Member of your Lordships’ House. Therefore, if something that was done while that person was on leave of absence needs investigating, surely it should be open to investigation.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I am deeply concerned by the recommendation in paragraph 7 and the explanation given for that recommendation. It seems to me that this would be a very strong incentive for Members to avoid investigation by simply retiring from your Lordships’ House. The committee should have considered instead—it will be interesting to see whether it has—either a procedure which would have introduced potential sanctions on former Members who were found to have been engaged in fraudulent or other activities, or suspension of any retirement or any right to retirement for those under investigation. I think that any member of the public reading this document would be astonished that we give people a “get out of jail free” card simply because it is more convenient for us to reduce the size of the House than to maintain the standards that we set.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to respond to these questions and will do my best. The first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was about where this came from. It came from within the committee. The committee has been extremely exercised about a number of what are perceived to be gaps or misunderstandings in the current arrangements.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Lord says it came from within the committee. Was it from a Member or Members on the committee—if so which Members—or from the officers?
The Chairman of Committees
My goodness me, my memory fails me. It came from Members; they have been looking at this whole area to see whether there are any misunderstandings or gaps. We have been much exercised—the committee has been together on this, addressing it in a serious and thorough way.
On whether there have been examples of Members who could contribute very well to the work of this House, I am advised that since the start of this Parliament, 30 Members have questioned whether their interests in the register bar them from contributing to the work of the House or one of the Select Committees. This report makes it plain that we all operate on our honour and have to ensure that, when we participate, our personal interests do not conflict with our public interests.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
The Chairman of Committees refers to 30 cases. This reform slightly dilutes the current arrangements. Surely from now on it should be insufficient to say, “I wish to declare my interests as registered”. Perhaps in future when there is some ambiguity in their position, Members should be more specific and say precisely what their interests are.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, Members’ interests have to be declared other than at Question Time. It is not sufficient on other occasions simply to refer gaily to them. The noble Lord raises an interesting point, and it illustrates one of the committee’s concerns: if we try to specify what is on one side of the line and what is on the other, we get into difficulty because everyone’s circumstances are different and the subject matter is different. The report says that there is no guidance that will weaken our honour in these matters other than advising that we must ensure that our personal interests do not conflict with our public duties in this House. We have a duty to uphold that and, frankly, to be subject to scrutiny should there be questions about that in the future. Most noble Lords will recognise that in many ways this strengthens our position because it makes all of us have to fulfil our duties in this place.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, made a point about suspension, I think, and the difference when someone is on leave of absence.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My point was not so much about the difference in approach as about the specific approach recommended in paragraph 7. In the justification, it is explained that Members will not be investigated if they choose to retire from the House, allowing everybody in your Lordships’ House a “get out of jail free” card should they be subject to investigation.
The Chairman of Committees
That is absolutely right. I am very grateful for the question because further thought is being given to that precise point and I hope that it will be possible to produce a report on that matter in the very near future.
Lord Cormack
It may be unnecessary to say this, but the inference I drew from the comment of the Chairman of Committees was that, if somebody who was on leave of absence was suspected of an infringement, he or she could not be investigated if it happened while that person was on leave of absence, because a Member on leave of absence remains a Member of your Lordships’ House and can come back at any time. I should like clarification on that point.
The Chairman of Committees
This is an interesting area. The code relates only to parliamentary conduct, and that would have to be dealt with if a Member of the House wished to return.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I hope that the Chairman of Committees will forgive me for speaking at this stage, but I have been mulling over his comments about the difficult line between personal and financial interests, and when it is appropriate to be considered an expert. Mulling over my experience of local authority guidance on the matter—an experience I know that many Members share—in local authorities, if you have a financial interest, no matter how much expertise you have, you may not take part in proceedings. I wonder why there is such a big difference between the rules we apply to ourselves here and those imposed on local authorities.
The Chairman of Committees
Local authorities are dealing with immediate local planning matters, and things of that kind. Here, the House is dealing, generally speaking, particularly in its committees, with very broad, general topics that deal with national or international matters. If you interpret the register in a particular way, many Members would be excluded from a whole range of activities of the House. The committee has decided that a better way to proceed is to make it plain that we operate on our honour and that, when there are issues of the kind to which the noble Baroness referred, the individual has to decide whether those issues are of such a general nature as not to be an impediment or whether there is a personal advantage to be gained. It is the issue of a personal advantage that will be the touchstone on all these matters, if the House adopts the report. I commend the Motion.
Code of Conduct
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords be amended as follows:
In paragraph 15, leave out the second sentence and insert “In participating in such proceedings they should ensure that there is no conflict between their declared interests and the public interest.”
Trade Union Bill
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Wheeler
“116B Deduction of union subscriptions from wages in public sector
(1) The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service shall publish a Code of Practice for the purposes of public sector employers making trade union subscription deductions from wages payable to workers to promote the need for openness and transparency.
(2) The Code of Practice shall include but shall not be limited to including—
(a) provision that all payroll deduction schemes shall give members the option to pay their subscriptions by other means;(b) reporting on the costs to employers of administering trade union subscriptions at the end of each financial year, including the percentage this represents of the employer’s total outgoing administrative and human resources costs;(c) guidance on the principles and operation of payroll deductions schemes and the administrative costs that should be charged to trade unions where payroll deduction schemes have been agreed.”
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to the seven amendments in the group and the clause stand part Motion from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches. It is a large and important group, so I hope noble Lords will bear with me, as there are a lot of issues to address, including matters arising from the Minister’s last-minute publication on Monday of the skeleton regulations on facility time and check-off, and Tuesday’s debate on those and on which public sector organisations are covered by the Bill.
Our Amendment 92 is an important one with which to start this debate, because it is aimed at probing exactly what problem the Government are trying to address by implementing an arbitrary and blanket ban on public sector employers reaching voluntary agreements with trade unions to deduct union subscriptions from staff pay, often preventing the staff themselves freely and openly choosing this option for paying their subs. Ministers must be clear and concise about their concerns over the current system. What is so wrong with it that it has to be abandoned in this draconian way, and what evidence is there that justifies an established system, currently well supported and valued by employers, trade unions and their members, and recognised as forming a crucial part of local industrial relations, partnerships and frameworks, just being dropped? Unless the Government can come up with solid evidence and the objective justification called for by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and unless they frame their arguments and comments in the context of displaying a far better understanding of the role and work of trade unions in a modern society than was so blatantly evident from Ministers throughout the Bill’s progress in the Commons, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the main purpose of getting rid of check-off is to undermine trade unions, prevent them being able to organise in the workplace and represent their members, and attack and seriously weaken their finances. In other words, as my noble friend Lord Collins said at Second Reading, it is pure vindictiveness.
Amendment 92 is also aimed at ensuring that the check-off system remains central to partnership and staff engagement agreements between employers and unions in the public sector. It underlines the need for an ACAS code of practice to promote openness, transparency and consistency in check-off agreements. Central to the code is members having clear options on payment methods and employer costs in administering the schemes being clear and consistent across employing authorities and open to report and scrutiny. Our amendment would also make clear the open and agreed principles and criteria for assessing the admin costs of the check-off system, and for the costs to be regularly reported on and expressed as a percentage of the employer’s overall admin and HR costs.
The Government have three broad contentions for their proposals to ban check-off in the public sector. They say that check-off deductions are not modern and that everyone has a bank account, so what is the problem? They say that the relationship should be between the trade unions and the member and not involve the employer, and that the system and admin costs of deduction are a burden and should not be borne by employers or the taxpayer. If Clause 14 stands, private and voluntary sector employers will be able to continue to operate check-off, but public sector employers will not have this choice and will have their hands tied by central government—this from a Government who herald their commitments to localism and empowerment of local employers so that decisions can be made locally in the light of local circumstances and needs. We know from the debates on the earlier clauses that the Government have got themselves into a mess over this Bill in relation to the devolved national Governments. We will hear still more evidence of the mismatch between the Government’s rhetoric on this brave new world of devolution and the proposals in this Bill in the debate on Amendment 97, from my noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Beecham.
In the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made many bold statements about how central Government have to stop interfering in local decision-making. I quote just one of the typical examples, when she said:
“Through the decentralisation that the Bill will enable, each city will be empowered to forge its own path, to play to its own strengths and to find its own creative solutions to the particular challenges that they face”.—[Official Report, 8/6/15; cols. 652-53.]
But they do not seem to have the autonomy to decide locally and continue tried and tested industrial relations agreements and partnerships, of which check-off is a key element, which underpin the positive, everyday working relationships between employers and trade unions. No wonder not a single public sector employer has spoken up to support the Government’s check-off ban. It is very pertinent that key councils at the forefront of devolution—for example, Manchester and Sheffield—are among the many that have expressed dismay and concern. Can the Minister explain how Devo Manc is to be delivered in Manchester, for example, including closer integration between NHS and social care, at the same time as long-standing partnerships and agreements with trade unions are being dismantled, while local reps scuttle around thousands of workplaces to talk to members and get them re-signed up so that they can carry on representing them?
One thing that we keep coming back to in this Bill is the question of fairness, which is no less relevant to the proposals for banning check-off. How can it be right to single out the public sector when the private and voluntary sectors can choose to continue the schemes? Why is it right to exempt some organisations that the Government favour, such as the police and crime commissioners and chief constables, who will be allowed to decide whether they want to operate check-off, although the choice will be allowed only for police officers and not for police staff?
The impact assessment fails dismally to provide any evidence or justification for the Government’s proposed ban. It assesses just two options: do nothing, or get rid of check-off. There is nothing in between the pros or cons of the current system, how it could be improved and made consistent across employing authorities, or ensuring that trade union members continue to have choice on paying their subscriptions by the method that best suits them, in the light of their work, circumstances and financial situation, be it by check-off, direct debit or a cash-based system. Will the Minister explain why a middle way was not even considered? The impact assessment dismisses this option in two sentences on the grounds that if trade unions paid the admin the policy objectives would not be delivered. Why did the policy objectives not include all the options?
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendment 93, which is in my name, but will also make a general contribution to this debate. I start fundamentally from a belief that this is a matter for local decision. Any Government with a localism agenda should not be promoting this amendment, because it has nothing at all to do with localism.
I began my life, as I suspect many people who have a long history of trade union involvement did, as a sub-collector—someone who went round collecting subscriptions from members. I was in a monthly-paid Civil Service job and on the first two days of each month I used to go round and collect subscriptions. It was a very pleasant experience as it meant that I had about an hour and a half off on each of those days, and because we had a branch rule that you could not take money home, I also had half an hour off at the end of each day when I went over to the treasurer in another building and handed over the small amount of money I had collected. Management decided that this was not a very efficient way for its employees to behave, and in the course of the 1960s, management decided that it would be a lot easier if it had a system called check-off. I was in a very odd union branch: the chairman was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the secretary was a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. I became the vice-chairman because the two parties could not agree on anyone, so they decided that someone young should do the job. However, our branch rigorously opposed check-off because it would break the link with members. What we meant was that it would obviate our ability to wander round the office on what in those days was known as foot patrol, because many of the members in our office had recently had experience of the Army. I notice that part of the impact assessment says that this will foster a more direct relationship with members. If you want to have people wandering around the office, fine, but I put that in by way of background because this was not fought for by the unions, but was largely asked for by management and accepted by the unions, because of course sub-collecting was a very random experience.
Let us move forward, to a tale of two unions. When I became the TU envoy for my party, we went to all the unions. Many of them were very helpful but some of the big ones were not, particularly Unite and the GMB. However, two of them were; the Minister will be very familiar with one, USDAW, whose general secretary John Hannett not only came to meet the party leader David Cameron but made it quite clear that he and USDAW did not support the Conservative Party. However, he also made it very clear that he wanted a constructive relationship with any party that might become the Government. He did not come to meet the Conservative Government; he came to meet the Conservative Opposition to benefit his members with a direct relationship. He sought a constructive attitude, which we associate with USDAW. That union is not affected by this measure because it has had some very good people looking after its personnel in the past and it has very good industrial relations.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly those in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Beecham, to which I have added my name. I will also speak to my own Amendment 97ZA.
With all the troubles that we have in the world today, I wonder—and I suspect the Minister may be in the same place—why on a cold Thursday in February we are seriously debating the removal of check-off from public sector employees. Just as it is very hard for any rational person to comprehend why we would not allow secure electronic and workplace balloting for industrial disputes, it is impossible to see why any fair person would want to remove this very basic service provided to public service employees.
I start with the cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, did. There is virtually no cost: that is very important to say. When my then Secretary of State Eric Pickles was keen to pursue this issue, he asked me to go away and find out what the cost was. I, in turn, asked my head of HR. The first response that I received was “zero”—it was literally too small to calculate. Now, as noble Lords will understand, that was not the right answer, so we looked again and came back with what was still, in the scheme of things, a very small, in fact nugatory, sum. Even if there is a cost, as we have already heard, the trade unions have signalled loud and clear that they are more than willing to cover it; indeed, arrangements exist. The cost issue simply does not stand as an argument.
The second argument is that it is outmoded in this age of direct payments. In reality, check-off is just one method of payment—one choice alongside others. I cannot understand why this Government are not in favour of giving people choice. We would not ban people from paying by cash for services if that is what they wanted to do, simply because it was outmoded in this electronic age. If the argument is that it is outmoded, why do we allow—indeed, encourage—payroll deductions for charitable purposes? My amendment today illustrates that point. We encourage it in one situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, says, but we say that it is outmoded in another. As far as I am aware, and the Minister may want to confirm this, the Government have no plans to remove payroll deductions for charitable purposes.
The third reason that has been suggested is connectivity with your employer—that this is too connected to the employer. Let us be clear that there is no connection, any more than there is a connection for a payroll deduction for other purposes. It is simply a convenient mechanism of allowing people to pay. Even if a Minister in a particular department were persuaded of the case for this change, it makes absolutely no sense whatever to dictate the same policy across the whole of the public sector. For me, that is just the Government exporting their own irrationality.
The reason why we have this proposal is, in reality, an unspoken one. The Government do not like the public sector unions and they want to make life more difficult for them. Let us be clear: this will make it harder for the unions. But as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, it will make it a lot harder for their members. They will be the real losers as a result of this change. It will not be the senior civil servants in the FDA, those I dealt with, who will be inconvenienced; it will be low-paid, widely distributed staff such as cleaners. They are the ones who will lose out.
I will confess to noble Lords that in the heat of a difficult industrial dispute, the question of removing check-off is often raised by managers. My response when this was raised with me would be, “Let’s sleep on it”, and in the cold light of day it looked like what it was: petty and vindictive. It was about punishment because they had upset us, and it demeaned us as public sector leaders to think of doing it. That is how we felt about it. Whatever frustrations the trade unions brought, they were playing their legitimate role of representing their members. It seems that the Government are not doing the same thing: they have not reflected on this proposal in the cold light of day. Just as it would have demeaned us if we had moved this forward as public sector leaders in local government, so this genuinely demeans the Government. It is a malevolent absurdity: malevolent because it wilfully sets out to cause harm, and absurd because the Government repeatedly seek to defend it with arguments that simply do not bear serious examination.
In the end this is about balanced and fair government, something we should all feel incredibly passionate about. Yesterday we heard a lot about mothers and dress codes. I shall say this to the Minister: I am wearing a suit, my tie is straight and I will be more than happy to sing the national anthem, or at least the first verse, if the Government will think again about this proposal.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I concur completely with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Balfe. I personally see this as a cynical attempt on the part of the Government to cause maximum damage, difficulty and disruption to trade unions. They are seeking to take away powers from public bodies when they should be devolving more of them, and to make Great Britain a less harmonious place in which to live and work. Every ostensible reason for restricting check-off, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has already indicated, cannot be substantiated.
The issue of cost has been mooted, but as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, many trade unions already cover the administrative costs of check-off. His Amendment 93 would resolve the situation as regards any which do not at the moment, certainly with regard to cost. In any case, many deductions are used as bargaining chips in negotiations between employers and employees within the whole package of benefits. It is part of the fabric of the relationship between employer, employee and trade union. So we have the irony whereby employers make deductions at source for any number of things, and we have heard about many of them already—they include charity subscriptions, bike schemes, season tickets and so on—but they will not be able to make a deduction for the most central thing in the working life of an employee.
The other fig leaf being used by the Government as an excuse is modernisation. Of course we can sign standing orders and direct debits, but is the removal of this benefit justifiable in terms of forcing trade union members to be modern? I suggest that there is a whole other reason. It stands up to scrutiny about as well as not allowing electronic voting in respect of industrial action, which is hardly an ethos of embracing modernity. It seems that we can be modern as long as it suits the Government’s purposes and damages the trade union.
Then there are the administration costs. The Government are supposed to be committed to reducing administrative costs for organisations—unless, of course, you are a trade union, when you will have to spend a huge amount of time re-signing up your members and changing the payments system all over again. As I said at Second Reading, the TaxPayers’ Alliance—not normally renowned for defending trade unions—has estimated the cost to trade unions of removing check-off at £6 million. Clearly, this will weaken trade unions and the Labour Party in their pockets. If there is one thing that the Conservative Party knows about, it is the importance of having money to spend on campaigning. Indeed, I am testament to how effective Conservative spending is, otherwise I might have been delivering this speech from green Benches, instead of red ones. I am sure that we on this side of the Chamber await with great interest the Select Committee report examining the financial implications of the Bill for democracy in this country.
Then there is the huge number of complaints that I and many colleagues from across the House have received from local authorities that are furious at having this power taken away from them. Public bodies of all kinds rely on the ability to be flexible in their negotiations with trade unions. It is part of building up good industrial relations, which are vital for the avoidance of industrial action when things get sticky. The Bill will harm good industrial relations and enhance the likelihood of industrial action. Indeed, if they were trying actively to provoke industrial action, the Government could not be doing a better job in the Bill. What happened to commitments to devolution? I thought that the idea was to give more power to local areas to run themselves, rather than take it away.
To try to see the other side of the argument, I believe that it is reasonable that members of trade unions should opt in to paying a political levy, but, with their having opted in, there is no excuse for any employer who chooses to not to be able to make deductions for their employees on anything they both mutually agree on. This is a cynical, vindictive clause, and I and my colleagues on these Benches will oppose it at the appropriate time.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, before I come to the specifics of Amendment 94, it is fair to say that these Benches echo the basic analysis of the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Kerslake, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, echoing, as they do in turn, the basic analysis of my noble friend Lady Wheeler. That is what we have heard in the last three-quarters of an hour.
We are reaching a position where we can only express amazement at the sudden rush to the head of some people in the Conservative Party of an ideological position that this whole tradition, which I thought in my generation of trade unionism had become mainstream in this country, summed up in the term “social partnership”, has gone out of fashion big time. Perhaps it is not held by all members of the Conservative Party—we have heard a very distinguished exception—but it is the controlling ideology of the Conservative Party.
The Government seem to want to do everything they can to reduce trade union membership per se—thereby cutting the legs off part of the social partnership structure—by reducing their income and making their role in the workplace next to invisible, even on such questions as health and safety and training and pensions, let alone collective bargaining on pay and conditions, grievance procedures, disputes procedures and all the rest of it; in other words, everything that makes up the quality of the contract of employment. For the last 30 years we have worked to improve not just pay but the quality of the contract of employment. I put on record our thanks to the Government for stopping just short of describing us as enemies of the people.
The Government’s impact assessment implies that there is no cost to the unions in removing check-off. It is not obvious to the Government that there will be any impact on trade union income and membership. I do not know who they have talked to. Perhaps the Minister can tell us that. They do not seem to have made any inquiries. We have heard that they do not seem to have made inquiries of local authorities, much less publish them. They do not seem to have made any inquiries of any employers—not that I can find—or of trade unionists. From my own inquiries, I conclude that one might expect in the sector affected a 20% reduction—that order of magnitude—in trade union membership, and a 20% reduction in trade union income as a consequence. As has been said, this will result from all the extra administrative hurdles over which trade unions will have to jump. Trade union members will receive a form through the post. There are few things more irritating than postal forms asking you to provide bank details and so on.
I should spell out what a 20% hit will mean in figures because we have been talking about peanuts for much of the discussion on the Trade Union Bill. You do not need to be Einstein to figure out that a 20% hit will mean that a union in this sector with 100,000 members will wind up with 80,000 members. If today it has an income of £10 million a year, it will be left with one of £8 million a year. Perhaps some of the Minister’s colleagues in the Government will shed crocodile tears on hearing that, but no doubt will also greet with a look of glee this further tearing up of the social fabric. I do not know too much about crocodiles, but some other animals have long memories.
The Government are struggling to find a justification for their claim that the impact on trade unions will be minimal. They have found and incorporated into the impact assessment—no doubt after some searching—a somewhat quixotic quote from a PCS spokesman, saying that the union could end up stronger as a result of this measure. However, if you look at the PCS website, you will find that this is among scores of other quotes saying pretty much the exact opposite.
The Government claim that the check-off arrangements are an outdated practice. I will not repeat everything that has been said, but it perhaps needs underlining in a couple of sentences. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and my noble friend Lady Wheeler pointed out—independent observers will surely acknowledge its validity—deductions from the payroll are an increasingly common way by which employers help their employees manage their finances. Payments for childcare, travel, charity donations, computers, the rent of bicycles—or whatever—are often made through payroll deductions.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
Where does the noble Lord get his 20% figure from? What surveys has he done? Why does he think that 20%—one in five—of trade unionists would think, “Oh well, I’m not going to bother carrying on paying into the union”, if the union is giving them a valuable service?
Lord Lea of Crondall
I have talked to many unions in the public sector, and that is the sort of feedback I get. It is for the two reasons I have given, but perhaps the noble Lord needs to be reminded of what I have only just said. The first reason is the extra administrative hurdles over which the trade unions would have to jump. It does not happen by magic. It will place a huge administrative burden and cost on trade union officials, who have other things to do, such as helping with day-to-day issues. To crank all this into action, whether in the Civil Service or elsewhere, will be a huge administrative burden. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, pointed out, people within the system see this as a ridiculous extra administrative burden. Secondly, people are not too keen on forms and might even blame the union for troubling them with another piece of paper or form to fill in. If I am wrong, I will naturally be relieved, but I might be wrong the wrong way round: it might be a bigger hit than 20%.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I might be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. If he checks with the Prison Officers’ Association, he will find that it had facilities withdrawn from check-off, and it has real troubles, as I mentioned on Second Reading.
Lord Lea of Crondall
The Government imply, without ever spelling out anybody specifically, that they have support for this radical change, but the Financial Times—hardly a Labour newspaper—has reported that,
“human resources directors in the National Health Service”—
the largest employer in the country, as we know—
“including those in some of the biggest hospitals, have written to Matthew Hancock, cabinet office minister, questioning … plans to scrap the … system”.
Another letter from human resources directors reported on in the Financial Times is to the effect that the five-year plan to improve performance would actually be set back by the changes set out, on the basis that close working between managers and union representatives had been,
“recognised by health ministers as fundamental”,
to its delivery. So why go around stirring up trouble? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has a good answer.
As Dave Prentis from UNISON pointed out in oral evidence to the Commons Public Bill Committee, the unions often pay for check-off deductions by arrangement. As has been said by everyone who has touched on this topic so far, it is perhaps peanuts in the bigger scheme of things, but if that is an issue at all, the amendment which could deal with that would be one that the Government, I am sure, would now wish to support. In summarising this financial question, on the one hand we have huge costs to the trade unions, relatively speaking, both in gross loss of income and through loss of members; on the other hand, there is the huge administrative burden. If unions are offering to make payments, this is the right time to reach a consensus on that point at least. However, I might add that it is monumentally unhelpful, given the time constraints on the requirement to sign up to direct debit payments, to be faced simultaneously—and we were discussing this two days ago—with the loss of facility time at the very point of explaining these untoward changes. Inside the Government, does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?
In response, therefore, either today or in the next couple of weeks, will the Government take the opportunity to meet the employers which have a degree of independence? There is a whole range of bodies, including those whose reputation suggests that they have a considerable degree of independence—the BBC, the British Museum and so on are listed. They are not organisations, I am sure, that the Minister would wish to say should be subject to any degree of intimidation to fall into line.
I now turn to the widening of the ban to privatised companies, which is the subject of the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Monks and others. As with facility time, with the banning of check-off the Government are again giving us the spectacle of extending the net to enterprises that are not in the public sector. I draw attention to the extraordinary scope of subsection (3) of Clause 14, which inserts new Section 116B into the 1992 Act. It is there on page 11 of the Bill. You can hardly believe it, but there it is. It allows a Minister to provide by regulation that a private sector employer can be deemed to be carrying out,
“functions of a public nature”—
I do not know what the Supreme Court lawyers would make of that—and it can be caught by Clause 14. What sort of legal drafting is that? Many distinguished jurists must be turning in their graves. One is inescapably reminded of the dictum, well known to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, of Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”.
That is the only way I can describe this extraordinary interpretation that public sector means private sector where the Government say it does.
As regards which companies this will apply to, by the way, we do not have a complete list. It may be wishful thinking to think that the ones we have heard specified are it. We do not know. Ministers may be having second thoughts. We do not know. Perhaps they just want to leave it all dangling there, blowing in the wind. We could be talking about air traffic control or about any of these companies. I repeat: why go about stirring up trouble and uncertainty? We could be talking about the field of nuclear decommissioning and companies such as Magnox Ltd and Sellafield Ltd. The letter from the Minister dated 22 February is not clear as to its scope: whether it is the definitive list or only a list of people within the public sector. One can only therefore assume that the examples given are not exhaustive. How do we find this out? Where can workers and unions find clarity—by guesswork? It is not exactly a model of transparency, and employers would have to err on the side of caution.
To take the example of nuclear decommissioning one stage further, this sector may have a bigger hit—
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does the noble Lord realise that he has now spoken for 18 minutes and we are still waiting for him to come to the point?
Lord Lea of Crondall
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I think that many of my colleagues will think that I have made some very pertinent points. I am now on my final two or three sentences.
In the case of the nuclear decommissioning industry, because of the extra difficulty of trying to get to the members—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, could pay some attention to this point—they are inhibited further than normal by the fact that nuclear sites are licensed with restricted access. When the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, finishes his private conversation, he might be interested in this, but he does not tend to listen to what people are saying, and that is not new. Has that extra difficulty been thought out of adding access to people on nuclear sites, which are licensed with restricted access?
There may be agreement that my final sentence is a good point to finish this on. I hope that the Minister will comment separately on this whole exercise of defining parts of the private sector as being in the public sector, as otherwise I can describe it only as the most outlandish idea, which seems to have won first prize—as the daftest one of all—at some well-lubricated jamboree organised by the Young Conservatives equivalent of the Militant Tendency.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I could be allowed a brief intervention—I was not making a particular point about being brief; I mean it will be brief for me. I apologise that I have not been able to take part either at Second Reading or in Committee. The Scotland Bill and the Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee have taken me away. I wanted to make a contribution and am sorry that I was not able to in respect of Clause 10, but I support Amendment 92, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, as it seems to provide a perfectly sensible way forward for the Government.
If we had a Labour Government who brought forward a Bill suggesting that employers should no longer be able to deduct private health insurance payments from people’s salaries, I wonder how we would react on these Benches. We would go absolutely mental. We would say that it was a gross intrusion and a politically motivated thing, which interfered in the relationship between employers and their employees.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, seemed to think that there was some ideology here. I can probably be identified with ideology in the Conservative Party more closely than most. I am a strong Thatcherite and very much supported my noble friend Lord Tebbit, who is no longer in his place, in his trade union reforms, which have stood the test of time. Those reforms were about ending the closed shop, giving the trade unions back to their members and taking the trade union movement away from the extremist militants within it who had led that movement, with its very proud history, into an abyss. That is what they were about.
Although I understand the main purpose of the Bill is to ensure that minorities do not dominate the decisions of trade unions, and support that core purpose, on both check-off and the question of opting in and out of the political levy I believe the Government are going far too far.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am sure my noble friend will agree that I could not be characterised in quite the way in which he characterised himself, but I entirely support what he is saying. I do not think that this is a proper way to behave. We ought to make it easy and simple for people to belong to a trade union, and if it is best done this way, they should be allowed to do it this way.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
There we are: we have the entire spectrum of the Conservative Party in agreement on this matter. I will not make any comments about Europe, so that we may maintain that position.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, pointed out, we allow charitable deductions, and as Conservatives surely we believe in reducing the power of the state, not increasing it. What business is it of the Government or the state to decide what arrangements are made between free trade union movements and employers?
I have looked in vain to find this great cohort of employers that are against check-off. It seems to me—this is a central point that has been made in the debate—that you do not want to create a situation where there is tension between employers and trade unions, and where you perhaps end up back where we were before the 1980s, with militant people going round the workplace to collect subscriptions and to encourage people to do things which we on this side of the Chamber would not be very enthusiastic about.
I am also very concerned about another thing. We have had a debate on my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s report on the use of secondary legislation, but here we have, in new Section 116B(3), in Clause 14:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations provide, in relation to a body or other person that is not a public authority but has functions of a public nature and is funded wholly or partly from public funds”—
that is quite a wide gang—
“that the body or other person is to be treated as a public authority for the purposes of this section”.
So the Government are taking unto themselves powers to be even broader in respect of something about which, as far as I can see, they have not yet made their case.
I do not want to take up much more of the Committee’s time, but will just give notice to my noble friend that, should this matter come to a Division, I will certainly not be supporting it. I suggest to my noble friend that she looks very carefully at the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, which seems to me to do everything that the Government could possibly want, if there is a genuine and sincere reason for making this change. It would provide for a proper code of practice, which means that people will be aware of what they are doing.
I suppose I should have declared my interest as a director of a bank, but the point has also been made about people who do not have bank accounts. I dare say we could find noble Lords on this side of the House who have not paid their subscription to the Conservative Party because they forgot to renew it and did not have a direct debit or something of that kind—my noble friend Lord King is indicating alarm at that. It is a very simple system, which is tried and tested and about which there are no complaints.
The costs are absolutely negligible. If it is a cost argument that is driving the Government, employers could charge the cost to the trade union, as the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who I thought made an excellent speech, suggests. But to my mind the costs to the employer are considerably less than those of having people coming round the workplace collecting subscriptions. If anything, what is being proposed will add to the burden of employers, and I thought that as Conservatives we were against adding to the burden of employers and in favour of making life as simple as possible for them.
This looks to me like something that seemed a good idea at the time, which has now got into legislation, perhaps not with the best of motives. It would be wise of the Government to take the good advice which is coming from all sides of the Chamber and drop it.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite an exceptional pleasure to follow the speeches of two distinguished Members of this House on the Conservative Benches and the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, which was pithy but very striking, if I may say so. I declare my local government interest and my interest as an unpaid consultant at a firm which, for many years, has acted for trade unions. In that capacity, I am very well aware of the help and support they give to individual members across a huge range of concerns, from employment tribunals to accident cases, and of their support for members in the workplace.
I start by referring to the other check-off—Anton Chekhov—who wrote in one of his stories:
“To advise is not to compel … You must trust and believe in people or life becomes impossible”.
That seems to me a good description of the world of industrial relations. When it comes to check-off, many councils, including Newcastle, of which I remain a member of course, charge for the service. Newcastle actually makes a profit of around £20,000, which goes into the council’s budget. To put it another way, it could be said that it reduces the cost of facility time, which we touched on in an earlier debate. Many other councils do the same. It would be quite reasonable for the Government to require unions to pay the cost of check-off—Unison has made it very clear that is has absolutely no problem with that—but it should be a matter for individual councils and public bodies, as it is for private sector companies, to decide whether or not to operate a check-off scheme.
Unison reports that it is involved with 9,334 agreements about check-off, 7,242 of them in the public sector, with the rest in the private sector and, I suppose, the voluntary sector. Interestingly, some major companies, such as E.ON and United Utilities to name but two, are perfectly happy to operate such a scheme. The proposals were not in the Tory manifesto, and appeared at the last minute as the Bill was going through in the House of Commons. It would appear that there was no consultation with employers, let alone, of course, the unions themselves. Indeed, the director of human resources at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust—a very major trust—has written:
“Ending trade union deductions through payroll in the public sector came out of the blue”—
I do not think he is making a political reference there. He went on:
“From what I can tell there has been no consultation with employers, no engagement with trade unions, no assessment of what it may mean for employee relations or, more importantly, recent progress in partnership with trade unions … My anxiety—which I know is shared by others—is about the unintended (but in this case entirely foreseeable) consequences. Check-off… is a light touch management activity, but it does give employers a sense of their union density, particularly when dealing with multiple trade unions”—
a point made effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. He continued:
“When balloting does take place, check-off allows employers to undertake the SBET (standard British eyeball test)”,
which I had never heard of before. Quite what it means, I confess I do not know, but I assume that it means that the employer can check on the validity of a ballot in relation to union membership. Mr Royles goes on:
“Should we challenge it? All this will be more difficult if payments are made by direct debit”.
That is a big employer, of a major service, making a very telling point.
The Government suggest that payments be made by direct debit from the employee’s bank, as we have heard. Other noble Lords have said there is really no difficulty in this, and, just as much to the point, most Unison members have expressed a preference for check-off. As long as there is no cost to the employer, why should their wishes not be respected? Many employers in local government have voiced their views, including the north-eastern councils, which have collectively backed check-off. I think the Dorset police and crime commissioner—who I suspect is probably not a Labour member—has done likewise. As we have heard, the Government are reserving the position in relation to the functions of police and crime commissioners.
On Second Reading, I quoted Margaret Thatcher, who famously said that,
“for over 100 years … it has been the belief of the Conservative Party that the law should not only permit, but that it should assist, the trades unions to carry out their legitimate function of protecting their members”.
It could be argued that she rather departed from that view, although the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, disagrees, during her period in office as Prime Minister, when she spoke of “the enemy within”. The latter view, sadly, appears to have shaped the provisions of the Bill. It is time for the Government to treat the unions as partners in the provision of public service, not as enemies, and to treat public sector and council employers as reasonable decision-makers, not subordinates requiring constant interference with, and control of, their role as managers of public services.
There is also the issue of potential legal challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, wrote in the Times recently that the second area where the Bill is vulnerable to legal challenge—he had identified another issue—is Clause 14. He wrote, “It is very difficult to see the justification for such a restriction which has a very damaging effect on the efficacy of trade unions”. There must be the possibility of a legal challenge.
I suspect that there will be a broad consensus in this Committee about many of these provisions, particularly this one. I hope that the Minister will take these views back to the Government and that they will think again. An amendment was moved in the Commons by a Conservative Back-Bencher which would effectively remove the element of compulsion and leave it to employers, providing that the cost was met.
I began my speech by referring to a quotation from Chekhov. I offer three titles of his short stories which might well be applied to this Bill: “Gone Astray”, “Overdoing It” and “A Blunder”.
Lord Cormack
It is certainly no cherry orchard, is it, my Lords? I am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Balfe in particular. He made a very telling, powerful and compelling speech, and I agreed with every word. Although I have concentrated my contributions to the debates on this Bill on Clauses 10 and 11, about which I remain acutely concerned—my noble friends on the Front Bench know my intentions if the debate does not move in the right way—I share the views and intentions of my noble friend Lord Balfe when it comes to this clause.
If the Conservative Party stands for anything, it stands for choice. This clause is an unnecessary, meddlesome, bureaucratic abolition of choice, and it is not worthy of the Conservative Party. Although she is engaged in conversation, I hope that my noble friend the Minister can hear what I am saying. She has a very good track record in the field of industrial relations. She cannot, surely, believe that the deprivation of choice is something that she can champion, and I hope that she will not.
It is only about a week since an eminent world leader rebuked an aspiring world leader by telling him, effectively, that those who wish to demonstrate their credentials should build bridges rather than walls. In this clause, we are building an unnecessary wall. It is inimical to the true one-nation Conservative tradition and it is not something that any Conservative can wholeheartedly support. The speech of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean was intervened on in a very pithy and apposite way by my noble friend Lord Deben, who said that they spanned the whole range of the Conservative Party. I stand somewhere between them on a range of issues, so I think that we pretty well span the range of opinion in the Conservative Party. If my noble friend the Minister thinks that by giving way on this clause she will be conceding to the Opposition, she will not be—she will be marching in the spirit of true one-nation, pro-choice conservatism.
I hope that when we come to Report, we will have from my noble friend a suitable amendment that will encapsulate the essence of the amendments proposed today, in particular the amendment so splendidly spoken to by my noble friend Lord Balfe, and that we will therefore be able to take away from this Bill an aspect of petty vindictiveness and spite that does nobody any favours and is wholly unnecessary. What is the point of this? The answer is that there is no point.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group and I give my full support to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Wheeler. I believe that Clause 14 is authoritarian and represents the Government’s belief that public sector employers cannot be trusted. I shall concentrate on my Amendment 95A and try, for the sake of time, not to cover ground that has already been covered.
Clause 14 creates regulations that may,
“make consequential provision amending or otherwise modifying contracts of employment or collective agreements”.
We do not know what the finished product will look like when this Bill becomes an Act. We do not know to what extent the regulations will cover important issues of policy—this has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—or just explanatory detail, but having a clause of this kind allows the Government to change individual employment contracts and to set aside collective bargaining agreements.
These seem to be Henry VIII powers which not only cut across employer/employee relationships and agreements but reduce the public sector to an employment agency for the Government. What lies behind this proposal and how significant is it from the Minister’s point of view? Is she able to argue that this is not a highly centralist proposal? Finally, what does the Minister have in mind when it comes to the phrase,
“amending or otherwise modifying contracts of employment”?
I notice that paragraph 3 of the draft skeleton regulations—it does not get more vague than that—on the prohibition of check-off states that check-off is,
“void in so far as it purports to require the relevant public sector employer to make trade union subscription deductions from wages payable to workers”.
As has been said many times, check-off is a voluntary arrangement entered into by the employer and the employee. What is meant by “purports to require”, as I am not aware of any employer who is required to do this? I am reluctant to help the Government on this, but perhaps the phrasing in the Explanatory Note would be more accurate, as it talks about purporting,
“to give the right to have such deductions made”.
My Amendments 123A and 124A seek to delay implementation for five years. I sincerely hope that this draconian measure about check-off will not go through at all, but if it does, it will take a huge amount of time for trade unions to put their house in order. Those points have been covered very well by other noble Lords, so I will not cover them again.
However, there will be a disproportionate impact on low-paid employees and part-timers, particularly women. I fear that it is taken for granted by the Government that everyone can create monthly direct debits or standing order arrangements with their banks. As has been said, this is not the case. Banks will not be accommodating if someone has a chequered payment history or if pay is intermittent. I refer back to facility time: some members will be able to pay only by cash or cheque, and there will need to be time for trade union representatives to do the physical collection—a point I made at Second Reading. All those problems will take time to solve, which is what I am asking for.
Finally, I ask a question on the implementation of the ban on check-off. There appears to be confusion in the skeleton regulations about the implementation of the ban. In her covering letter of 22 February, the Minister refers to the ban not coming into force,
“until at least 12 months following Royal Assent of the Bill”.
However, the draft regulations suggest that the ban will come into force,
“no sooner than 12 months of being laid in draft form in both Houses”.
Although the final regulations could be laid at the same time as Royal Assent, that is not guaranteed, so the dates could be quite different. Nick Boles has previously talked about implementation,
“from commencement of the provisions on check-off”.—[Official Report, Commons, Trade Union Bill Committee, 27/10/15; col. 413.]
Will the Government clarify which date they currently support? My amendment asks for a five-year period for trade unions, their members and employers to be able to implement this without detriment. There will still be detriment to employers, of course, because they will not know who the trade union members are. That is still a vital point, even for those who think that trade unions are anathema.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will back down. They have a marvellous opportunity, in the shape of my noble friend’s amendment, to do that with dignity.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I am fearful of keeping noble Lords from their lunch, but I have several points that have not already been made in the debate. I agree absolutely with what the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Kerslake, said about how the Bill, particularly this clause, is designed principally to make life difficult for the unions. It is not about modernising industrial relations.
I challenge the Minister to explain some of the statements made in the impact assessment. It is extraordinary that it states:
“Removing the check off provision is not expected to have a negative impact on industrial relations”—
we have heard arguments to the contrary in this debate. It also states:
“The impact of transition on the trade unions will be minimal”.
How can that be? It further states that:
“We assume that the amount of time taken to become familiar with the proposals will be small as changes introduced in the Bill are straightforward”.
We have heard in the debate that these are complex and difficult procedures that the unions will be inveigled into if the proposals are passed.
I accept that we have moved on a long way from when union dues were collected in cash. I remember in the sector in which I worked, staff had for years been paid in cash and the father of chapel used to go around collecting dues regularly. The only problem was that he was also acting as a bookie’s runner in the plant, so the union was very grateful when the management agreed to accept check-off.
We have moved on from that, but we want union representatives to concentrate on improving industrial relations. We know that, whatever happens, there will be a huge muddle and administrative problem. No one has mentioned that we now have ballots for strikes and industrial action. The complication of not having agreed lists of who can vote in those ballots will be much more difficult in the public sector without check-off. No one has mentioned that there is a huge problem with people not cancelling direct debits when, in this case, they move jobs to different sectors and may even need to join another union. We know that those direct debits are often not cancelled.
Lord Balfe
My Lords, I point out that Baroness Williams, who has just departed from us, continued to pay dues to the Labour Party for 10 years after she had joined the Social Democratic Party, because she failed to cancel her direct debit?
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
I think it needs such sources of money at the moment.
Another issue that has not been raised is that a good employer wants representative unions. As someone who has been involved as a manager—I know that the unions may be suspicious of this—I liked to know who was in the union, because I wanted to know how representative the leadership of the union was in negotiations, how serious they were and how I should respond to them. That is an important point.
Another point that the Conservatives have overlooked is that, if you get unions down to a core so that they are unrepresentative, you will face very difficult decisions. I always remember Vic Feather saying, “I always look to the faces of the people at the back of a room, not the voices of the activists at the front”. If you want representative unions, you want the highest number of your employees to be members of that union. Not to upset my Labour friends, but if you go down this route, you will be handing the trade unions to the Corbynites, the less representative groups. You will have more trouble in the trade unions as a result, particularly in the public sector, than if you recognise that the rank and file—the people involved in high-turnover sectors, the cleaners—have good judgment when they have to face the decision whether to lose wages and take industrial action. Those people provide the solid support for trade unions, and you should be encouraging them. If you do not, you will end up with worse industrial relations.
I support Amendment 92. It is a good way forward, and the Government should look carefully at it. The amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Balfe, help in the debate. We must address the fact that, once again, the Government speak devolution and then do absolutely the opposite—as in local government. The Bill, and these provisions, do not help us to modernise industrial relations.
Lord Monks (Lab)
Perhaps I can help the Minister to join the consensus on how awful the clause is by stressing one point that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, touched on. It is about choice. There is sometimes confusion in audiences that I address about check-off. People wonder, “Is it to do with the closed shop? Is it compulsory that union subs are deducted by the employer and sent to the union?”. The answer is no: the closed shop is history, it has gone. There is no compulsion, it is voluntary. There is also sometimes confusion with the political contribution, the political levy, where there is an opt-out. If there is any inertia selling, it tends to be on the side of the opt-out system.
This is a matter of choice. When my daughter got a job in the Minister’s former company, Tesco, as a Saturday girl, she got a form in the recruitment pack that said, “Do you want to be a member of the union? If so sign here. Do you agree to have your subscription deducted from the payroll? If so sign here”. That was the system. If it is good enough for Tesco, why can it not be good enough for Manchester City Council or all the other public bodies that will be covered by this provision? Why manufacture a series of disputes about union contributions and how they are collected in a vast range of British places of employment? It is a step far too far, and I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to what is said on all sides of the House.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
I put to the Minister a question that she might consider before she comes to the Box. She will have a prepared speech, and she has obviously amended her notes. But what has come out during this debate is an inconsistency in the position of those to whom the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred as wishing to contribute to Bupa, and all the other organisations referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. In her reply, the Minister must address that difference in treatment, because it goes to the heart of the case. When people outside the House judge the ministerial response, they will have to do so on the basis of whether trade unions are being penalised when other organisations are not being penalised. That is what I shall look for in her contribution. If she does not address it, she will be pressed on by interventions during her wind-up.
Lord Sawyer (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Kerslake, for their contributions and particularly what they said about part-time, low-paid workers in the public services—the National Health Service and local government. Throughout my lifetime I represented those workers and I know what it is like for people on those kinds of wages and in that kind of situation to handle bank accounts, standing orders and direct debits. It is very difficult, and it was heartening for me to hear noble Lords’ understanding and kind words in relation to those often forgotten and underappreciated workers.
The climate of employer relations in the public services in the 1970s was very immature and undeveloped. I was a trade union official and I would ask a local authority whether I could take a road worker to a meeting to talk about pay and conditions, but it was very difficult to get the authority to release a person to go to a meeting. When it did, the road worker would turn up with dirty hands. When I asked him why he had not washed them, he would say, “The management will give me time to come to the meeting but they will not give me time to wash my hands”. I used to take school meals women or school cleaners to meetings, and the management would be dressed appropriately, as we expect managers to dress, but the women were always required to go to meetings without time to take their overalls off and put a dress on. They would have to take part in the meetings wearing the overalls that they went to work in.
I give noble Lords those examples only to show how backward employer relations were in the 1970s. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that some of the Conservative legislation helped with that, but other things happened as well in public services. The two big things that made the change were having facility time and deduction at source; they changed the landscape dramatically, because people did not have to worry about getting time off to go to a meeting or about scurrying around all the time collecting subscriptions. They started to concentrate on what the taxpayer and consumer wanted them to do—that is, improving the quality of the service through good employer relations. Today we have a fantastic employer relations situation in the public services. There is partnership and we deal with thousands of problems every day. Management and unions work together; they do not have to look over their shoulder about facility time or think about check-off—they can get on with the job of solving the many problems that have to be resolved, building good employer relations and doing the things that the taxpayers and consumers want them to do. I hope the Minister will take that point on board, listen to the excellent speeches that have been made this morning and think again about this clause.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I approach this from a slightly different angle. I looked at the Bill for the first time with a particular interest in Clauses 10 and 11 and learned about check-off only from reading Clause 14 later. Frankly, I was surprised to see check-off still taking place, as it does not sit comfortably with many people. My noble friend Lord Balfe’s story of its history is very illuminating and extremely interesting; it explains to us why it came about, as opposed to the cash collection that predated it. Clearly, no one starting today would use a check-off system; the way everyone is moving is towards direct debit.
I have spent time trying to understand why check-off is not appropriate. One reason I discovered is that apparently in 1998 legislation came out that did not require changes in the amount paid under check-off to receive notice—whereas, of course, direct debit under the direct debit guarantee requires 10 days’ notice. So people are assured that any change to the amount paid by direct debit gets 10 days’ notice. It seems to me that unions are moving in the direction of direct debit. The Public and Commercial Services Union briefed its members on that subject, stating in its own material:
“Trade unions in general are no stranger to Direct Debit. POA members currently pay via this method after the previous Tory Government attacked their trade union rights and forced them to halt ‘check off’. The following Labour Government offered to reinstate it for them, but the POA chose to stick with Direct Debit. Many other large trade unions collect subscriptions in this way … such as Unite and GMB”.
Indeed, Unite offers incentives to people to move to direct debit; currently, it offers an incentive of £25.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Does my noble friend appreciate that some people on some very low incomes may not have bank accounts at all? If they do have bank accounts and set up direct debits, if there is not enough money in their account, they get an enormous bill from the bank because the direct debit has been disallowed. Therefore, they are very reluctant to sign up to direct debit.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
I would be very interested to know the number of those people. Clearly, the numbers have changed dramatically since check-off was brought in, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, explained.
Lord Cormack
Yes, but we are concerned about every individual. Even if it is only a few hundred people, surely that in itself is justification for what is being argued by almost everybody in this debate.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
Of course, exceptions can be made for a few hundred, if it is a few hundred, as with others. But it seems that direct debit is the direction of travel. I have nearly finished.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble friend. I have no idea what the numbers are, but it will be more than a few hundred—and it will be the people who will lose most if they do not have the backing of their union. I appreciate that they may not move in his social circle, but there are a lot of people like that.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
I am not sure the noble Lord knows my particular social circle, but I took the figure of a few hundred from my noble friend Lord Cormack. As I said, I do not know the numbers and I do not think the noble Lord knows the numbers, but it would be interesting to have them presented to us.
Lord Cormack
The point I was making was that even if it is only a tiny number, why are we doing this?
Lord Leigh of Hurley
Yes, I thank the noble Lord—I have taken the point. The point that I was making was that the direction of travel, in the market and clearly by the unions, is towards direct debit, which is a direction of travel that we should encourage.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, and I have begun to feel a bit sorry for the Minister, because she totally lacks any kind of support whatever. If I am allowed to say so without being out of order, I also feel very sorry for her officials in the Box and elsewhere, who have to witness the slaughter of their Minister on a completely unacceptable Bill.
I want to make just one simple point: this Bill has a significance way beyond the issue itself. This country desperately needs a strong economy. It desperately needs the most effective, harmonious, productive economic system that we can ensure. There is simply no room whatever for a culture of confrontation. We need co-operation between self-confident people who feel that they really matter and have a stake in the process. This Bill does nothing whatever to promote such a positive approach in the interests of the British economy and British society. There is no place for it. This debate has left no doubt whatever about that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for her clear, comprehensive and relatively succinct introduction to this enormous group. It is plain that the sense of the Committee is that there are concerns about Clause 14, for reasons that have been fully debated. However, we have looked carefully at the clause and the amendments, and I will try to explain our thinking in a clear and objective fashion.
It is important to note that check-off was introduced in a very different time when bank accounts were not common and workers were paid in cash. We are now in a modern era of online banking, where public sector workers’ wages are almost all paid directly into bank accounts and direct debit is the obvious alternative. The average consumer already has six direct debits. This is the direction of travel, as my noble friend Lord Leigh said. An advantage of moving to direct debit is that a union and its members will have a direct subscription relationship without any need for a public sector employer to be an intermediary.
It is, of course, about the public sector that we are talking, to respond to my noble friend Lord Forsyth. If we were designing a union membership payment method today from scratch, no one would choose to put the employer as an intermediary in the subscription relationship between a union and its members.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I suspect that if it was starting now, rather than 100 years ago, things would be different because of the direction of travel.
Baroness Wheeler
The Minister said she would be clear and objective. Will she state what evidence she has been given for saying that that would be the case?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I think we have set out clearly in our impact assessment and elsewhere the way things are going. There is clear evidence that there has been a big move to direct debits, internet banking et cetera. I do not think anyone could dispute that. As a former employer in the private sector, I was thinking that if one was setting out on this today, one would not necessarily do it in the same way.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I shall give the Minister a simple fact. She talked about Tesco. She was part of a partnership arrangement. Can she tell me how old that arrangement is and how important payroll deduction is to it? In my memory, it is relatively recent.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I think check-off existed for a number of years at Tesco, long before I arrived. We had the partnership agreement to which the noble Lord refers in the late 1990s, and I was involved in that. Check-off is part of the arrangements. In the Bill, we are not seeking to regulate the private sector; we are talking about the public sector, and there is a cost which is set out.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
The Minister has been very clear about the notion that there is evidence of the direction of travel. Is she suggesting that the direction of travel—meaning that more people use internet banking, perhaps on their phones, or direct debit—is the introduction of technology, and therefore it is just the direction of travel of technology that is being raised here? There has been a massive expansion in the use of payroll deductions for a variety of things from bicycles to charitable donations. Does that indicate another direction of travel—the velocity of the things that have been introduced? What is the particular evidence that there is a direction of travel which is unique and distinct and obviates the opportunity for choice to be exercised?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Lord is right in saying that the direction of travel is driven by digital change—I am not disputing that—and that a fair number of things are deducted at source. However—and I am trying to find my notes—they nearly all have tax or national insurance involved.
Lord Monks
I remind the Minister about workplace pensions. They are a very recent auto-enrolment initiative. They do not go back to the 1990s; they go back about two years. They are based on payroll deductions. They are not old-fashioned; they are efficient. They are the way to do things. They are much cheaper than direct debit and much easier for people to handle. That is why, on a consensus basis, auto-enrolment is based on payroll deductions.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to be discourteous to the Committee in any way, but there have been five or six interruptions so far and the Minister has been on her feet for four minutes. If she is allowed to make just a little bit of progress, perhaps during the course of that progress she will be able to respond to some of the questions being put.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am grateful to my noble friend. We are debating check-off in relation to Clause 4. The Public and Commercial Services Union on its website quotes a member who said of direct debit:
“It’s the easiest way of paying my union subs. You know then that it’s going to get paid because you’re not dependent on your employer taking it from your wages. I think it’s better”.
I agree with that.
Public sector employers, where they are funded by the taxpayer, have no place in shouldering the administrative burden of collecting trade union subscriptions. Even where the union pays the employer for the service, it remains the employer’s responsibility to manage the payments, and if the employer gets it wrong, it could be taken to an employment tribunal.
Unite, UNISON, GMB and PCS already accept direct debits, and some unions have already modernised their arrangements and accept only direct debit payments. Direct debits are easy to set up, and they offer excellent consumer protection. The majority of adults in the UK use them, and many organisations consider it their preferred method of receiving payments, such as utility providers who offer customers a discount if they pay in this way.
I thank my noble friend Lord Balfe for setting up a meeting with officials from some small trade unions. What struck me was that they felt that direct debit was the way forward and that some of them had already modernised their arrangements and no longer use check-off. The unions I met included the FDA, Accord, Prospect, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the National Association of Head Teachers, the British Dental Association and others.
Modern employment practices are seeing more fluidity in the workplace. As Prospect says:
“Many Prospect members change jobs frequently, or have periods of unemployment between contracts. If you’re moving on, you don’t have to resign your Prospect membership. We can stay with you during those times”.
At Second Reading, I said that I was in listening mode, and we have listened to some of the concerns raised about implementing this change and allowing a sufficient transition period. So to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, we announced in the other place that the regulations on check-off would not come into effect until 12 months after the Bill received Royal Assent. This will give unions double the time we originally proposed—a full year—to encourage their membership to move over to paying their subscriptions by direct debit. That is on top of the time unions have already had since the proposal was first announced last August. It is one of the many reasons why we do not accept the assertion that the proposal offends human rights or hinders union activity. It is about a change of subscription method over a full year and, as we see it, does not engage the European Convention on Human Rights. It is right that unions should adopt modern subscription practices to reflect the changing needs of all their members. No new entrant to the job market would expect only ever to have one employer these days. Check-off is not well suited to meeting the needs of a diverse and fluid workforce.
We heard at Second Reading that check-off benefited employees as it made sure that they ceased being a union member when they left employment, but all the large trade unions offer specific memberships for retired members, and trade union membership is not restricted to those who are still working.
Noble Lords have claimed several times that the prohibition on check-off will affect those without bank accounts. I have not seen a great deal of evidence that such public sector workers exist outside the hypotheticals—and we are talking about the public sector—but even if a few members still do not have bank accounts, I am sure that a union would be prepared to accept cash or alternative payment arrangements, although this would be very much a matter for the union. Even basic bank accounts now allow direct debits, and of course if you are online you can cancel a direct debit when you need to, which has represented progress in banking. More householders than ever now have bank accounts, and the check-off impact assessment referred to the wider Bill impact assessment that was published at the same time. The impact on union members will be minimal as they will have, as I have just said, 12 months to switch to direct debit.
Lord Mendelsohn
I am finding difficult the suggestion that there is now some prescription that direct debit is the only method that should be used. Putting aside the issue of choice and the fact that direct debit does not appear at all in the Bill as a solution, I would like to give an example and get the Minister’s view on the following: in the Government’s evidence about the propensity of people to use payday lenders, one of the extraordinary features of those people who have very little who use payday lenders was that they remove direct debits from their bank account so as not to suffer the penalties as a consequence of it. Many of those were low-paid workers and will have been in the public sector. In those circumstances, where it is better to have this deducted at source when the money comes in rather than having an impact on their bank account where there may be a detriment, should those people not have a choice as to where and how they should be able to pay their union deductions?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point. Having said that, the growth of direct debit in lots of areas has continued. As I have said, I do not think we are ruling out a union accepting cash or alternative payment arrangements. We are trying to make a change of direction here within the public sector.
I was going on to say that we debated Clauses 12 and 13 earlier this week, and I indicated then that I would go away and think about concerns relating to which organisations would be in scope of the facility time regulations, so I will not seek to delay the Committee by trying to answer all the related questions that have been asked today in that area.
I should, however, turn to Amendments 94 and 97, both of which seek to limit the employers within scope of the regulations. Amendment 97 in particular would carve out our largest public sector employer, the NHS, plus local authorities, thus excluding large swathes of the public sector. Obviously, that would not deliver on our commitment to ban check-off. As I said earlier in the debate, we are looking at the impact of the skeleton regulations that we sent to noble Lords earlier this week.
Lord Beecham
Will the Minister explain why it is deemed necessary to impose a new arrangement on two parties, a public sector authority and a trade union, that are perfectly agreeable to operating a check-off scheme? Why is it necessary for the Government to intervene in a situation where both sides are satisfied with an arrangement, on the basis that there will be no cost to the employer? If the Government’s provision is good enough for the public sector, why are they not seeking to apply it to the private sector? What is the difference?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the difference is that the cost falls on the public sector.
Lord Beecham
But the premise—the burden of the amendments that we are discussing—is there would be no cost to the public sector employer.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The answer is that I think the impact assessment says there is a cost of £7.2 million. I was seeking to answer the question that had been raised.
Amendment 92 would allow check-off to remain and replace the prohibition with a statutory obligation for ACAS to create a code of practice. As part of that, payment for a check-off service would be recommended as best practice. I return to the points made on earlier amendments: this would not deliver the commitment that we have made to prohibit check-off across the public sector. As it would not be a mandatory requirement, some organisations, as I think we have heard today, might choose not to do it while others might do so, and then one would have an inconsistency of application.
I am, however, grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfe for Amendment 93, which seeks to help us by allowing check-off to be retained wherever the employer is reimbursed. However, even where the service is paid for, I cannot accept that it is appropriate for a public sector employer to be the intermediary of the subscriptions relationship between a union and its members.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt, as we have had a long debate. I make an appeal to the Minister: from virtually every speaker in all parts of the Committee we have heard a plea that I myself tried to put into one word, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Monks: “choice”. Can she not go away and come back on Report, having reflected on the virtually unanimous opinion of those who have taken part in this debate? We are not asking her to trash a manifesto commitment—far from it. We are merely asking her to be a little bit flexible where she is insisting upon inflexibility.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. I have said from the very beginning that we are listening during this Committee stage. Having said that, it is only right that I set out clearly the reasons why we believe that this clause is the right one and is needed, which is what I have been seeking to do. I think that I am nearly through. I am sorry that I have not been quite as succinct as the noble Baroness opposite.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Could the Minister answer this question, which I have great difficulty in understanding? Why is it permissible for check-off to exist in the case of charities, BUPA and all the organisations set out by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, but not in the case of trade unions?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I have already sought to answer this question. Deductions for things such as pensions, childcare vouchers, Cycle to Work and all the other things that have been mentioned have tax or national insurance implications so it makes sense for them to be made through payroll. The collection of union subscriptions should be the concern of trade unions rather than of tax-funded employers. That is the difference.
Lord Collins of Highbury
It is a long time ago for me but I remember that part, if not all, of the subscription for craft unions in particular was treated for tax purposes and was declarable in terms of being alleviated—professional fees as part of a trade union subscription. Where that applies in the public sector, will it no longer apply?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am not sure I entirely understand the point. If I may, I will reflect on it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sorry—I am irritating my noble friend by intervening. I am just worried about this principle that the Government think it should be a matter of law that there should be deductions only for things which have tax implications. Does that mean we can look forward to the Government bringing forward legislation to stop people having deductions for Christmas clubs and suchlike?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friend. I am not making any commitments about government policy in any of these areas. I am seeking to explain that there is a difference of logic—perhaps not very effectively, but I am trying to do just that today.
I was trying to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, about contractual rights. Amendment 95A seeks to allow check-off to remain where employees have a contractual right or where there is a collective agreement in force which guarantees it. I do not think that that applies in many areas but there are some examples in local government. The prohibition would of course not be fully effective if we could not ensure that it applied consistently to all public sector employees. However, any modification would apply only retrospectively, from when the regulations came into force. It relates only to those very specific aspects of what has been collectively bargained. This is entirely reasonable and proportionate.
Amendments 123A and 124A seek to delay the removal of check-off so that Clause 14 would not come into force for five years. As I commented earlier, we have doubled the amount of time members would have to bring in the changes. This should be more than enough time for unions and members who have not already done so to transition to direct debit.
Finally, I turn to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and to his amendment. I am not sure that I should say this but as an ex-civil servant, I was rather shocked to hear of private exchanges between him and the recent former Minister on this matter. However, his amendment is not quite what we are looking for, because it allows for check-off effectively to be put on a statutory footing. This would prolong this method of payment, preserving the status quo and delaying the modernisation that we seek to provide, so I cannot agree to it. In fact, requiring all employers to do this could be seen to be anti-localism, in effect. It does not seem to fit the bill today.
I have covered the main amendments. We have had a long and useful debate and I am grateful for the opportunity to address some of the concerns. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. This has been a powerful, detailed and consensual debate. She says that she is in listening mode and I will carefully read her comments in Hansard, although I am sorry that she has not felt able to respond to the consensual nature of the debate. In fact, the only thing she has listened to is the issue concerning the implementation date, and she has not moved on that because we knew that the Government were moving implementation from six months to a year anyway. Therefore, there has not been any movement. I seriously struggle to detect any real change in the Government’s fundamental understanding of the role and work of trade unions in a modern society, or their simplistic consideration of the two options only approach in their check-off ban.
As speaker after speaker has demonstrated, the proposals are unfair, unjustified and unworkable. They have simply not been thought through. The Government have failed to address the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ call for objective justification of the proposals. The Minister simply has not addressed the arguments that have been made across the House. We have had support throughout the House: from the Lib Dems, from the Cross Benches—from my own Benches, obviously—from all noble Lords. I thank them, particularly the noble Lords opposite for the range of support and opinion that they reflect. It is a particular first for me to have such unequivocal support from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. His analogy regarding the Conservatives’ reaction if they sought to ban contributions to private health insurance was telling and appropriate. He mentioned the review of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I draw his attention to the debate we had on Tuesday on facility time. Clause 13 seeks reserved powers over capping facility time, which the Government say they will not use unless they have to. The Minister observed that the affirmative procedure would be used in that case. Therefore, we are in quite a bit of difficulty.
I will not go into all the arguments again. It is frustrating that the Minister has not been able to address the consensual nature of the debate, for which I am certainly very grateful. This is about fairness and justice. Amendments 92 and 93 provide the reassurances that are needed if the Government’s agenda is openness, transparency in procedures and costs and no burden on the taxpayer. If these amendments are supported in principle, the Government could succeed in achieving their objectives. They would in fact be regulating a system that regulates itself pretty well already, which is an interesting position for a Government who declare an abhorrence of red tape to be in. However, aside from that issue, if they do not support the amendments or move towards accepting them in principle, the only conclusion to draw is that they want to destroy effective trade union organisation, to prevent unions representing their members in the workplace and to attack and seriously weaken their finances. This issue is vital to the future of industrial relations, trade unions and their members, and as noble Lords across the House have said, it is about members’ choice. The Government are offering a top-down solution to a problem that does not exist. We will pursue the issues raised today with vigour and determination on Report, and with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Flooding: EU Solidarity Fund
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made earlier today in the other place by the Minister of State for Local Growth and the Northern Powerhouse. The Statement is as follows.
“I want to pay tribute to all those who have in whatever way supported the many places that were flooded in December and early January. The whole House will want to recognise the enormous amount of effort that has gone into supporting households and businesses, not just in the initial response to the floods but also in the ongoing work to get residents back into homes and businesses open.
The Government recognise that the immediate priority is to respond to the urgent needs of those affected. That is why we have already provided over £200 million to help those affected by the floods to support recovery and repair. A key feature of our package of support is the Communities and Business Recovery Scheme. It is designed to provide ready support to local authorities affected by Storm Desmond and Storm Eva to in turn help individuals, small and medium-sized businesses and communities to return to normality. Additionally, it provides property level resilience grants of up to £5,000 so that people can protect their homes and businesses against future floods by putting in place resilient repairs. To date under the Communities and Business Recovery Scheme, government has paid out a total of £21 million for Storm Desmond and £26 million for Storm Eva. Further payments will follow. We are also supporting farmers with grants worth up to £20,000 to help restore damaged agricultural land and farm vehicle access, repair boundaries and carry out field drainage.
Having set out what the Government have already done, I want to turn now to what more we can do. Today, I would like to announce our intention to make an application to the European Union Solidarity Fund. The fund was set up to respond to major natural disasters and to express European solidarity with disaster-stricken regions within Europe. The fund was created as a reaction to the severe floods in central Europe in the summer of 2002. Since then, it has been used for 70 disasters covering a range of catastrophic events, including floods, forest fires, earthquakes, storms and drought. The only time the UK applied to the fund was following the flooding of 2007, which saw widespread and significant damage across large swathes of England.
Member states have 12 weeks from the start of an incident to register their intention to claim. Once we have confirmed our intent, there is time to consider with the Commission the elements of assessment. Following this process, the Commission assesses the application and, if it is accepted, proposes an amount of aid to the European Parliament. Once the appropriations become available in the EU budget, the Commission adopts a decision awarding the aid to the affected state, following which the aid is paid out in a single instalment. When the aid is paid out, the affected state is responsible for the implementation, including the selection of operations and their audit and control. Emergency measures may be financed retrospectively from day one of the disaster. The EUSF is not, and nor is it designed to be, a rapid response instrument for dealing with the effects of a natural disaster. Financial aid can be granted to the applying state only following an application and the budgetary process, which can take several months to complete”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. However, it seems perverse that the Government are only now announcing that an application is being made—four days before the deadline—when it could have been made in early December, when the first evidence of the devastation in the flood areas became apparent. During that time, communities have been left in the dark about whether an application to the fund would be made, despite the fact that it was established to respond precisely to natural disasters such as those experienced in the north and north-east of the UK.
Can the noble Baroness clarify why this unnecessary delay has occurred? Can she say what scope there is to make multiple applications to reflect the wide geographical spread of communities affected over this time? Can she guarantee that all the aid received will be channelled directly into the affected communities rather than being used to refill the Government’s coffers for the financial support already provided? Finally, can she clarify whether part of the fund will be used to assist residents who have not yet been able to return to their properties, where the need is very urgent? I look forward to her response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, in response to the point about the time taken, thresholds have to be met and the damage assessed, so these things necessarily take time. We will be making a regional claim. I am sure that under the rules of the structural fund the money would not be able to be diverted into anything other than repairs following the flood damage, and there is no intention to do so. Therefore, I can confirm that the funds will not be used for anything other than the purposes for which they are intended. I remind the noble Baroness that back in 2007, when an application was made by the then Labour Government, they took eight weeks to signal their intention and to make the application. That was a recognition that these things take time.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted that the Government have now decided to apply. I asked them to do so in this Chamber on two occasions—on 7 December and 14 January, when I was very grateful to the Defra Minister for the reply that I received. This scheme is yet another example of why we are better off being in Europe. The funding could make a huge difference—for example, in repairing the damage to the A591, which I know is known to many Members of this House. Its closure has been disastrous for local people, local businesses and tourism. Therefore, I ask the Minister to confirm that the inevitable time lag in receiving any funding will not delay the plans for reconstruction of the critical infrastructure and that the Government will guarantee those funds.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the A591 and indeed about some of the more local infrastructure repairs that need to be done. In fact, I drove up the A591 as far as I could only last week when I was in Grasmere. Work is under way to repair that road, which is vital not just for businesses but for tourism in the region. I am glad that the noble Baroness was grateful for the reply that she received. Following the floods, on a couple of occasions at this Dispatch Box I signalled that we were considering making an application, and today it is good to say that we are intending to do so.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of Cumbria County Council, perhaps I may say that the Minister’s announcement will be very welcome in the county, even if she has had to spend several months arguing with the Secretary of State for Justice that this does not represent a terrible affront to national sovereignty. It is vital that we proceed—as the Minister knows, there is a huge problem. The Government have been helpful so far but the infrastructure costs to the public sector alone amount to not many tens of millions but possibly hundreds of millions in the county of Cumbria alone. Does the Minister accept that there needs to be the quickest possible analysis of the total costs so that a proper application can be submitted and we can try to get as much of this money into the county and into other affected areas as quickly as possible?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right: the devastation in Cumbria has been quite significant. He and I have talked both across the Dispatch Box and privately about the needs of Cumbria, and I hope that the flood envoy, as well as Ministers, have been useful in their visits there. The Government are doing everything they can to work with the flood-affected areas to make right the damage. However, they were very keen to make an immediate response and moved very quickly to remedy some of the immediate problems. This is a much longer-term payment—back in 2007, it took months to come through—so we need to separate the immediate recovery operation from some of the more long-term funding that will come through.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, I witnessed the Boxing Day floods from my front-room window and am aware of the damage that has been done in the Calder Valley between Brighouse and Todmorden, and beyond. Liz Truss has been to the Calder Valley and has made certain promises, particularly to Mytholmroyd, where a great wall is to be built and other work is to be carried out. Can the Minister confirm that none of those promises will be contingent on this European money, that the promises will be honoured, and that the European money that we are talking about will be used to fund other very important work that is still required?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can confirm that any obligations or promises that the Government have made will be fulfilled. I can say that quite firmly from this Dispatch Box today. Unlike the noble Lord, I did not see the flooding from my front window on Boxing Day, but when I went up to some of the affected communities in Greater Manchester a couple of days afterwards, I saw that it was really quite devastating—the noble Lord is absolutely right about that. In fact, it is difficult to appreciate the devastation that communities feel until you actually see it for yourself.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement, and I particularly warmly welcome hearing a Conservative Minister say “EU” and “solidarity” in the same breath. I accept what she said about it taking some time to put an application together, but I do not think it takes that much time to state an intent to put an application together. The Government could have come forward and provided that reassurance sooner. Can I press the Minister on the point made by my noble friend from the Dispatch Box around an assurance that this money will not be used to back-fill what the Treasury has already promised and is already spending? There must be new money from the Treasury, if new money is needed, to match the very welcome money from the European Union.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, in terms of what is expected from the European Union Solidarity Fund, the Government will fulfil their obligations under what they have already committed to. This will not be a sly way to circumvent what we have already promised, and I can confirm that a lot of the money has already gone out of the £200 million that we committed. As for the time it takes to make an application, the noble Lord will appreciate that certain thresholds have to be met. It is in analysing those thresholds that the Government know whether they can make an application. These things take time, and there was no intention of delay on our part.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I want to place on record the appreciation of my former constituency in Keswick, a place where I have spent much of my life, for the work done by Julie Ward, the Member of the European Parliament, in pressing the Government here and working in Brussels to ensure that this process would work. She has been campaigning extensively on the very issue of this fund. Does the Minister have any idea of how much this will actually mean for areas such as the county of Cumbria? Can we have some numbers, please?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am sorry to say that those numbers have not been finalised at this stage. I do not know the noble Lord’s colleague, but I believe him when he says that she has been working hard. In fact, Keswick is another place that I passed the other day. Perhaps, at this point, the House will indulge me in commending businesses in Keswick, Windermere and Grasmere, where I stayed, for having the grit and determination to get back up and running. Coming into Grasmere, I saw a sign that read, “Grasmere is open for business”, and it certainly was full of tourists. I congratulate people who have gone there, and also the businesses for being so warmly welcoming of tourists so quickly after such devastating events.
Immigration: Students
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to removing international students from the net migration figures by including them as non-immigrant admissions, as is done in the United States.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)
My Lords, in introducing this short debate I declare two interests: I am an honorary fellow of Birkbeck College and I am the treasurer of the All-Party Parliamentary University Group. I should also say that I am looking forward enormously to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, whose very distinguished record in science, technology and universities precedes her.
Net migration figures into the United Kingdom quite rightly reflect the flow of all those who come into the United Kingdom within a certain period of time—usually a year—minus the flow of those who leave. The Office for National Statistics, which is responsible for compiling these figures, uses the UN definition of “migrant”, which includes all people who move into the country for a period of 12 months or more, regardless of the purpose or permanence of their stay. On that basis, all students coming to study in the UK for more than one year are counted as immigrants. Likewise, all those who leave at the end of their studies are counted as emigrants.
International students are of very considerable benefit to the United Kingdom. They pay fees for their university tuition and accommodation, and UUK reckons that, together with off-campus spending, each student brings something like £26,000 a year to the United Kingdom economy. Indeed, the Government reckon that export earnings from overseas students amount to currently something like £25 billion, and the Autumn Statement suggested an ambition that this should grow by 20% to £30 billion by 2020.
There are also longer-term benefits. For example, a recent study from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills found that more than 80% of the students who had studied here retained personal and professional links and had an increased appreciation for, and trust of, the United Kingdom. In other words, that soft power is very important as well as the actual money that they bring in. For all these reasons, it is very much to the UK’s advantage to encourage as many international students as possible to come to this country.
Problems, however, arise on two scores. First, in so far as the number of students coming to this country from overseas is increasing, we would expect that over that period more would come in than would leave, and that this would be reflected as a rise in net migration. Indeed, given the 20% increase in non-EU students projected in the Autumn Statement, the estimates written into the detailed documents accompanying the Statement projected an increase of 7% in student numbers for 2016-17 and 2017-18. This would amount to an extra 20,000 students each year, adding potentially an extra 40,000 to the net migration figures over these two years.
This, in itself, would not matter, if the Government had not at the same time set themselves a target for reducing net migration to below 100,000 from its current total of more than 300,000. In pursuit of this target, the Government have been tightening up the regulations on student visas, and many universities are complaining that, far from increasing, the number of new entrants is actually falling. Indeed, according to the latest figures, there has been a drop of 3% in new entrants for courses and, in particular, the number of students from west Africa and the Indian subcontinent is down.
The universities are particularly unhappy with the regime of “credibility interviews” instituted by the Home Office since 2012, whereby students, having applied for and received their certificate of acceptance by the universities, and then having to apply for a visa, are further interviewed by Home Office officials, often by Skype, to assess whether they are bona fide students. This is far from a small, random sample; in 2014, 125,000 credibility interviews took place and the total number of entrants was 174,000. There was also a sizeable increase in the number of visa refusals.
Research by the UK Council for International Student Affairs reveals that Home Office officials are making judgments well beyond the agreed terms of such interviews, often countering the university’s own assessment of academic potential on a seemingly random and inconsistent basis. But since those who conduct the interviews are not required to keep records of their reasons for turning down a visa, there is, at present, no recourse on these judgments. The overall result, far from encouraging overseas applicants to apply to our universities, drives them into the arms of our competitors, the USA, Canada and Australia, all of which, like the UK, are seeking to increase applicants from abroad.
On the face of it, there are two wholly incompatible strands of government policy: on the one hand seeking to increase overseas student numbers and, on the other, seeking all possible ways to cut net migration numbers. Universities are keen to expand the intake of students from non-EU countries—they bring, as I have said, substantial income both to the university and to local business, and many taught graduate programmes are dependent on recruiting overseas students. But inevitably, expansion in overseas student numbers increases net migration and results in tighter and tighter controls over the issuing of student visas, with the UK appearing more and more unwelcoming to overseas students. The one policy totally contradicts the other.
Others besides me have suggested treating students as temporary migrants and separating them from the net migration figures. The Government have resisted that on three grounds. In the first place, the ONS is obliged to use the UN definition of migrant. Secondly, students, even if temporary migrants, use public services and in this sense are in no way different from other migrants. Thirdly, the International Passenger Survey suggests that many students do not return when their visas expire and are therefore not temporary migrants.
I will return to the first of those, the UN definition, in a moment, but I will deal briefly with the other two issues. Most students are young people who make relatively little demand on public services and are in any case now required to pay an NHS surcharge. As we saw earlier, far from being a burden, they contribute substantially to the UK economy and in the long run very substantially.
In relation to the IPS, there is much controversy over its validity. There are good figures because of visas and university registrations for new entrants, but although attempts are being made to collate exit records, these are as yet in their infancy, which is why reliance has to be placed on the IPS. Even the Oxford-based Migration Observatory concluded that the statistics were unreliable and that the temporariness of international students remains uncertain.
That brings me to my final point—the UN definition of migrant. I suggest that the answer is to copy the Americans. The US gets over the problem by issuing two different sets of statistics on net immigration. The first, issued by the US Census Bureau uses the same UN definition of migrant and, like the UK ONS, measures overall flows of people, including students, in and out of the country on an annual basis. The second set of statistics, produced for the Department of Homeland Security, makes the distinction between permanent immigrants and those classed as non-immigrant admissions, which includes students alongside tourists, business travellers and those involved in cultural exchanges. Canada and Australia make a similar distinction. It seems such a simple solution to a problem that has caused the Government a good deal of grief.
I end by posing two questions to the Minister. Why cannot this country be more pragmatic like the Americans and use two sets of statistics, thereby complying with the UN requirements in measuring overall migration flows, but having a sensible set of statistics on which to base their net immigration targets? Secondly, why does the Home Office think it necessary to best-guess university admissions systems and run such a heavy-handed programme of credibility interviews? Random sampling is one thing; interviewing and often in the process upsetting and putting off two-thirds of potential entrants is another. Is this really necessary?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving us the chance once again to debate this rather vexed issue. I have listened carefully to what she said and I understand the force of her arguments, but I am afraid for me they are trumped by other and wider considerations. I therefore think that the Government should resist calls to change the categorisation at this time. I will explain why.
In the year ending in March 2015, 216,000 student visas were issued—roughly the same number as in the prior year. But also in that year, 73,000 applications to extend the student visa were made and granted. One-third of the total of students asked for an extension: some to continue to study, some to work and some for family reasons. There lies my concern. This could be the beginning of a process whereby individuals who have come here as students slowly morph into becoming members of the settled population of the country.
The extent of this leakage is hotly disputed, and indeed, the excellent briefing pack from the Library for the debate today contains some important figures. Perhaps my noble friend can update us in his reply on the Government’s latest estimates of what this leakage is. Whatever the figure, an integral part of this morphing and transition is that the person becomes an immigrant, not a student, and should therefore be classified as such.
Noble Lords will have heard me before express my concern at the very rapid rate of increase in the population of this country and the implications for the entire settled population. Our population is now growing by 1,153 people per day, and of that about half comes from immigration. This is a small and increasingly crowded island. England is now more densely populated than the Netherlands. That is also why, with respect to the noble Baroness, I must say that using the example of the United States, with its massive geographical extent, is not a fair one in a debate such as this.
That takes me to my final point and a question for my noble friend. What gives this debate its edge is that we still have inadequate control over our borders. We cannot ensure that everybody who is here is entitled to be here. Though launched in 2003, the e-Borders system appears some way from completion. I understand that in the past four years, between 2011 and 2015, my noble friend’s department spent nearly £90 million on improving systems that the e-Borders system would have replaced, and information about travellers is still being processed on two systems that do not share data or analysis effectively. An update from my noble friend on the e-Borders progress would be much appreciated.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on once again championing the interests of higher education in this country. Universities and academic bodies appreciate her dedication and expertise; I speak as the president of Birkbeck in saying as much. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, on such an important topic.
This subject of international students being moved from immigration figures keeps on coming up. We have had debates, Written Questions and Oral Questions. Why has there been so little movement from the Government on this? There seems to be something of a tabloid-driven policy here. Statistics from the International Passenger Survey show a gap between the numbers of immigrants arriving and emigrants returning. The number hovers around 93,000 a year. What a fine UK headline that would make: bogus student immigrants come to stay. We do not want that—do we?
But such fears need to be faced. We need further data and an examination of who these overstayers are. Will the Government consider a post-study work visa? Statistics in this area are limited and the methodology crude. George Osborne told the Treasury Select Committee as much. There seems to be a tension, in that the Home Office planned to increase the amount of cash in the bank that foreign postgraduates must have before they are allowed into this country and insist that they must past tougher language tests, but reports tell me that George Osborne shot down those suggestions. He clearly has a more welcoming agenda.
Will the Government now please give some nuanced thinking as to how to turn what is a ham-fisted ruling into a success story in its own right? At this very moment, the country could use an upbeat immigration story and this could be it. Students come here bringing their wealth and skills, our universities offer them levels of study that they cannot find anywhere else and some of them, just some of them, overstay. For the most part, the vast majority of those returning home have a good story to tell of our academic standards, our outstanding university life and the nature of life in this country in general. That is a huge plus in the soft power that we exercise around the world. That success story needs to be celebrated. Can we have some plausible lateral thinking from this Government to make it so?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Sharp on instituting this debate and on her powerfully argued opening speech. I declare an interest as a member of the UCL Council. Like my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown.
The Minister knows that from these Benches we have consistently pursued issues relating to overseas students for several years now. However, the Home Office seems to be oblivious to the overwhelming arguments for excluding students from the net migration figures. Higher education is one of the most important and successful sectors for the UK, contributing £11 billion in overseas earnings, added to which are the continuing personal and professional links that are created—the soft power referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. The Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary, to their credit, now seem to be at odds with the Home Secretary on this issue. No wonder, because to adopt policies which reduce overseas student numbers is economic madness.
The International Passenger Survey figures are estimates. It is clear that there is no reliable measurement of net migration at all, so how can there be reliable evidence of abuse and overstaying, as alleged? Frankly, when is the Home Office going to be able to produce decent figures for net migration?
In Oral Questions last December I raised the issue of the credibility test introduced in 2013, which has led to so many visa refusals for students from countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan, to which my noble friend referred. But it appears that the Home Office does not even collect statistics on the reasons for visa removal. The Minister tried to reassure me in his response, but there is clear evidence of the overzealous application by the Home Office of the visa rules on overseas students which is potentially chilling, both in respect of applications and expiry. Even completely blameless students are now being improperly detained. I cite the arrest of Paul Hamilton, an American postdoctoral student, as a “flight risk” and the US doctoral student, Sabine Parrish, who was detained for eight hours on no grounds whatever. Will the Minister condemn these abuses? As the Times Higher Education says:
“This game makes no economic or educational sense, and will drive international applicants into the arms of US, Canadian and Australian universities”.
The number of overseas students coming here is understandably beginning to stall, in contrast to the growth in competitor countries. Our clear aim must now be to restore our attractiveness as a destination for overseas students. Along with putting other policies into place, we should, as so many have consistently called for, including my noble friend, exclude these students from the net migration figures.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB) (Maiden)
My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to join your Lordships’ House. I am looking forward to the opportunity to contribute in areas where I have expertise: engineering, universities, innovation and climate change. I am very grateful to all the staff here, especially of course the doorkeepers and the police, as well as to all noble Lords for being both welcoming, as is evidenced here today, and tolerant. I thank my supporters, the noble Lords, Lord Baker of Dorking and Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, and my mentor, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I must declare an interest, in that I am the vice-chancellor of Aston University in Birmingham.
We have heard from other noble Lords how international students contribute to the UK in many ways. Overseas student fees subsidise education for home students. At Aston, 18% of my student population is from overseas, providing more than 30% of my fee income. Overseas students are critical to maintaining engineering provision in UK universities. Engineering UK reports that 25% to 40% of undergraduates on engineering courses are from overseas. At Aston, half our overseas students are on science, engineering and maths courses.
The inclusion of overseas students in net migration figures—that is, within a population we are seeking to reduce—while simultaneously targeting an increase in their numbers, is illogical. It affects the behaviour of our agencies, as we have heard, and contributes to the feeling that these students are less welcome in the UK than they would be in the USA, Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
While UK employment levels have been much less sensitive to the recent recession than those of our competitors, UK productivity is falling behind. The productivity deficit is particularly associated with small and medium-sized enterprises. That is critical because SMEs account for 60% of UK jobs. Research published last week by the Enterprise Research Centre at Warwick and Aston business schools highlights the need for innovation and access to global markets in order to improve SME productivity. But there is clearly a challenge in recruiting the right people to enable this. The CBI Inspiring Growth report last year highlighted that while 40% of employers prefer graduates with technical skills, the proportion having problems recruiting scientists and engineers has more than doubled in the past two years.
I ask the Minister that the Government consider not only taking overseas students out of the net migration figures, but make it easier for companies, in particular SMEs, to recruit overseas graduates from UK universities by, for example, reducing or removing the minimum starting salary for a tier 2 visa, a restriction that does not exist in the USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Data for the West Midlands suggest that average graduate starting salaries are below the minimum figure of £20,800 required for tier 2 visas, and starting salaries that are affordable for SMEs and spin-outs are often lower still. Allowing ambitious SMEs in our regions easier access to an affordable international talent pool should be part of our regional growth strategy, supporting business innovation, global reach and the health of our great universities.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, on her excellent maiden speech. I have known her for almost a decade, since I was the founder of the UK-India Business Council. Now she is the vice-chancellor of Aston University in Birmingham and I am the Chancellor of the University of Birmingham; we are neighbours. She has taken her title as Cambridge because she is a staunch alumna of Murray Edwards College, known in our day as New Hall, which is one of only three women-only colleges remaining in Cambridge. Her career in the field of engineering is outstanding—from working at Rolls-Royce to heading the engineering faculty at Imperial College in London, to her famous King review in 2008 on carbon emissions from road transport. Not content with being a world-renowned expert in the field of engineering and science, with awards too numerous for me to list, she is also married to Dr Colin Brown, the engineering director at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. We look forward very much to her contributions in the years to come.
Aung San Suu Kyi, Bill Clinton, Desmond Tutu and Mahatma Gandhi all studied at UK universities. They are the finest universities on this planet along with those of the United States of America, and yet the Government continue to classify international students as immigrants when calculating the net immigration figures, as well as having a target to reduce net immigration to fewer than 100,000. Then, hypocritically, the Government say that there are no limits to international students. Logically, there is no way the Government will meet their targets unless they reduce international student numbers. They have done the right thing in closing down bogus colleges and we all agree with that, but now their policies are damaging genuine international students at our world-class universities. I see this every day in my role as president of UKCISA.
At the University of Birmingham, 20% of our student body is made up of international students and 33% of our academic staff are from overseas. BIS itself states that international students bring in more than £13 billion a year in overseas earnings, and yet, in the words of Professor Leszek Borysiewicz, vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge,
“the potential economic gains for the UK for recruiting more overseas students are being sacrificed at the altar of political expediency”.
He went on to say that it is “ludicrous” to include overseas students in UK immigration targets. Our competitor countries do not categorise international students as immigrants. In the US they are included as non-immigration admissions, while in Australia they are reported as net temporary arrivals. In Canada they are placed in the temporary resident category. I ask the Minister this: why can we not do the same? In fact, the Prime Minister himself has said to me that he would be open to this idea.
The Government are unnecessarily creating a rod for their own back. Furthermore, our competitor countries have ambitious targets to grow international student numbers, accompanied by government action to help them do so. For example, Canada wants to double its number of international students to 450,000 by 2020. In 2014-15 the number of Indian students increased by 32% in the United States, while the number of Indian students coming to the UK has fallen drastically. Does the Minister agree that we should have specific targets to increase the number of international students?
As we have heard, removing our post-study work visa route has also been hugely damaging. An NUS survey found that 51% of students think that the Government are not welcoming towards international students. Universities UK research shows that 22% of the British public considers overseas students not to be immigrants, yet the Government keep relying on International Passenger Survey data, which are completely unreliable. I have repeatedly said that the Government need to reintroduce exit checks at our borders and that all passports, EU and non-EU, need to be scanned in and out of the country. Then, we would have proper control of our borders and we would know the international students coming in and going out.
This year I was appointed chair of the advisory board at Cambridge Judge Business School. Christoph Loch, our director, said that the Government’s current policies,
“not only are ineffective … but outright hostile and unfair toward a population of highly talented people who collectively do have an influence on the reputation of the UK in the world”.
The Government keep talking about the United Nations’ definition of migrants but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said—I thank her for the debate—no one is suggesting that the UK should stop reporting to the UN or recording student migrant numbers. There is no reason why the UN definition should be used for the particular domestic policy objective of the net migration target. UUK, the Russell group, London First and the NUS all independently agree with what I have said. International students are not only one of our biggest export earners, but one of the strongest elements of our soft power.
The Government have sent a strong message about their intention to keep out migrants who will bring no value to the UK, but they must be equally clear that the UK still wants to attract economically valuable groups, such as genuine international students. Removing this group from the net migration target would send a clear international message that the UK is open to all the amazing benefits that international students provide to our country and to British universities, which are the jewel in our crown.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on securing this timely and important debate. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, on her excellent maiden speech. I note that her PhD was on fracture mechanisms in embrittled alloy steels. I am sure we all agree that her performance was copper-bottomed and I look forward to her contributions to further debates in the House.
I declare an interest as deputy chancellor of BPP University. We attract thousands of international students each year, 96% of whom attain employment within six months of completing their studies. Some stay; some return home. Either way, Britain benefits.
The leaders of Australia, Belgium, Brunei, Botswana, Bahrain—I could go on. Those are just the As and the Bs of world leaders who have studied as international students in the United Kingdom—55 at last count. That is a good enough reason to celebrate international students coming to UK institutions.
On top of that, they bring billions for British business. We just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, the king of Cobra Beer. I ask my noble friend the Minister: can he imagine a curry without Cobra? Unimaginable, yet a reality had the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, not come to this country as an international student.
To turn to the data, the IPS statistics are mainly meaningless. That 90,000 is a nonsense number. We can know nothing from those statistics. If we are going to argue on the numbers, we need to have decent data on which to base this debate. I ask my noble friend the Minister: if the system is working and we are open for business, how is it that in the last year we have had a 10% fall in students from India coming to Britain and an 8% fall in students from Nigeria, while Canada has had an 11% increase in international students, the United States 10% and Australia 8%? If we do not get this right, the rest of the world will make a better offer and those international students will go somewhere else.
If we are to have a northern powerhouse, we need international students. If we are to revive our railways, we need international students. If we are to have fully enriched artistic, cultural leisure pursuits in this nation, international students are critical. In short, we need to get the message out there: there is good migration and there is less good migration.
In conclusion, we need to end this visa vapidity. We need counsels of prudence, not of prevention, and we need to warmly welcome the brightest and the best to come and study in Britain.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, this is far from the first time that the House has debated the Government’s policy of treating overseas students as economic migrants. Nevertheless, it is good that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has brought the matter up again, and even better that my noble friend Lady Brown has joined the ranks of those who have been breaking their teeth on the Government’s policy for as long as I can remember. This issue is one of the black swans of today’s policy agenda—a policy without much support even in the Cabinet and none at all outside it. It is one with no serious justification.
I have five questions to which I would like the Minister to try to find a reply. First, does the system help the Government to reach their target of reducing overall migration to the tens of thousands? Certainly not. Since there are 180,000-plus students coming in and the number is tending to rise, it makes that target impossible to achieve.
Secondly, does it assist the Government’s policy of expanding the higher education sector’s contribution to our invisible exports, which are substantial, by attracting the brightest and the best? Certainly not, again. It discourages them. The most recent 2014-15 figures are pretty sobering, since we are losing market share to all our main competitors.
Thirdly, are students properly regarded as economic migrants? The answer to that, too, must be negative. They pay fees—often higher fees than our own students—generate employment and pump resources into towns and cities where they study, while making disproportionately small demands on the National Health Service and other benefits.
Fourthly, are we compelled to classify them in this way? No, we are not. The UN classification, to which the Home Office clings like a drowning man to the smallest of planks, is not legally binding. We already have separate statistics for students. We can submit them as the United States does and stop treating them as economic migrants.
Fifthly, does the student issue drive the general concern, which certainly does exist, about immigration? There is not the slightest evidence that it does. If you asked most people whether they regard students as economic migrants, they would look at you in great puzzlement and think that it was a pretty silly question, particularly now that the Government have clamped down on dodgy language schools.
If the Government cannot provide answers to those questions, could they please just change the policy?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for securing this Question for Short Debate. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, on an excellent maiden speech. She brings a wealth of experience from the higher education, engineering and science fields. I hope that this is the first of very many contributions she will make to your Lordships’ House.
It is not possible in the short time that I have to do this subject justice. I find myself agreeing with almost all the remarks made by noble Lords in this debate. The UK attracts a large number of international students coming to study here for a year or more. We have some of the best universities in the world, offering fantastic courses, leading to highly sought-after qualifications. We are, though, in a very competitive marketplace and it is the duty of the Government to do everything in their power to make the UK an even more attractive destination for international students.
I am not asking the Government to change how the net migration figures are reported as this is an internationally recognised definition, but they can do more. Looking at the net migration target that they have set themselves is one example. The Government have created a conflict for themselves entirely of their own making—it does not have to be there—by wanting to boost international student numbers while reducing their net migration targets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, said, that is wholly incompatible. I also agree with her suggestion that we should consider adopting the US system of recording these data.
The Government’s ambition for growth in this sector is not as ambitious as that of our competitors. Our visa system is more restrictive and the UK is losing out needlessly. Shortly, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, will tell us that there is no cap on the number of bona fide international students coming to study in the UK, but the fact is that our numbers have been relatively stagnant in recent years compared to our competitors, which have seen significant growth. The United States has seen an increase of 10% and Australia 8.9% in international student numbers, in comparison to growth of 0.6% in the UK over the same period.
We need to make our system for getting international students into the UK more welcoming and streamlined like our competitors, particularly the United States of America, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, said. People need to feel more welcome. The fall by 50% in the number of Indian students coming to study in the UK is of particular concern. Surveys have shown that the general public do not perceive international students as immigrants, and they bring a significant boost to our economy measured in billions of pounds. International students who study here and have a good experience return home with a very favourable view of the UK. That is of enormous benefit to us, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell said. She rightly pointed out how important that is in terms of our soft power influence in the world.
My time is nearly up so I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for enabling us to have this debate. I hope that we can return to the subject very soon as we need to keep impressing upon the Government that it is in our country’s interest that it acts on this sooner rather than later.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for securing this debate. Although we are very familiar with our respective positions as we have debated this issue so often, I suggest that there is a great deal more common ground than may at first appear. Of course, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for the way she introduced the debate. I listened carefully as she set out in precise terms how the current system works and the terms, methodologies and calculations used, which match the Government’s exactly, as one would expect from a distinguished academic. There is common ground on the analysis to that extent. However, there may be divergence over some of the conclusions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, made an outstanding contribution to the debate in her maiden speech. More importantly, given her distinguished background in academia, particularly in science, technology and engineering, she brings an immensely valuable perspective to your Lordships’ House. We very much look forward to her further contributions.
Another area on which we can agree is that Britain is blessed with some of the greatest universities in the world. Any table will show that we have perhaps four out of 10 or six out of 20 of the top universities in the world. The UK is widely admired and respected in that field. It is not by accident therefore that we are the second largest attractor of foreign students in the world. That is a very important point for us to remember.
Nor is there any disagreement over the fact that the Government have set out in their own financial strategy that we want to see the number of students continue to increase, as was said. We have set targets for the contributions we want to see universities make because this is a great export earner. As a number of noble Lords said, the soft power that this process brings to this country is immensely valuable as we move forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, there is no doubt that we want to continue to attract the brightest and the best. That is common ground. We want to see an increase in foreign students—we are proud of them and we recognise their value—so where is the point of difference? I shall try distil that down to a question about whether the means by which we calculate the number of students coming into this country and those leaving this country acts as a deterrent to people thinking of coming to study here.
As regards the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, I think there is a problem. When you look at the overall statistics, there is some encouraging news. The number of overseas students coming to Russell group universities is up by 39% since 2010. However, when you break down the figures and start looking at them country by country, you see differences. You see numbers from China increasing but India’s economy is also growing strongly now and yet we see a different pattern there. We have looked at differences in the way British universities welcome these students who are effectively investing in this country, and how the latter perceive that welcome. Having discussed the matter with Jo Johnson, our Universities Minister, James Brokenshire went to India just last week with the specific purpose of busting some of the myths that surround the welcome that awaits genuine students who have the relevant qualifications and have been offered places at our world-class universities. There is a great deal to do in that regard. We need to get across the message that there is no limit on the number of students who can come to genuine universities here and that there is no limit on the number of people who can switch from tier 4 visas to tier 2 graduate programmes, particularly in the types of disciplines to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, referred. The level of the salary is, of course, something that we need to examine. If we want to attract the brightest and the best, then, of course, £20,800 as a starting salary is about NVQ level 3 or 4, or about A-level.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, does the Minister accept that that is above the average graduate salary in places such as the north of England?
Lord Bates
That may be so. I would have to look into that point in relation to the north of England, and I am happy to do so. However, the point is that there is no limit on the number of graduate opportunities available. We have special programmes for PhD students and for post-doctoral study. Therefore, we need to get that message out into the wider world much more effectively that Britain welcomes these students and that a range of opportunities exists for students, post-study, to continue to work and gain experience. They can continue on tier 5 with approved internships and training programmes. Twenty-eight thousand organisations have approval to sponsor tier 2 graduate employment opportunities. There is also the PhD entrepreneur route on tier 1. There is a wealth of opportunities for these students.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked five very pertinent questions and then answered them, albeit not entirely to the Government’s satisfaction. We recognise that our country is experiencing growing pressures from inward migration and its effect on the fabric of society. As a result, we need to take steps to bring net migration down. Of course, you cannot do that simply by changing the figures. It would be very easy to change the figures and, by waving a magic wand, halve net migration. That would be very comfortable but it would not be true. Often people come to this country to study and then stay on. That is why there is a discrepancy between the figure of 117,000 coming in and 40,000 leaving. We need to understand better why we have the 77,000 discrepancy and we need to better understand the data.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked for an update on e-borders. Exit checks, which were introduced last year, will give us a better picture of where those people are going. We will publish an update report in May on the progress of e-borders and the exit checks. That will give us greater confidence in this regard.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, we know that e-borders are not reliable. We have a migration problem with the EU as well. Why do we not institute scanning of all passports—EU and non-EU—at our borders? Then we will have total control. It is easy technology and is available right now.
Lord Bates
We will continue to look at these things. The exit checks are the first step to something we hope will help us get a better handle on flows in and out of the country.
I am aware that there is a great deal of expertise in the House, particularly in the higher education sector. We keep debating the numbers, but I urge noble Lords to think that our message should be to sell the incredible opportunities people have when they come to study in some of the greatest universities in the world. As graduates, they will then have the opportunity to work in some of the greatest companies in world. That is a fantastic offer that we can all come together to sell.
Lord Clement-Jones
I apologise for interrupting the Minister again, but he has time to answer a couple of questions. The two cases I mentioned were quite egregious, because neither postgraduate student had breached any visa rules. That gives Britain an enormously bad name among that community.
Lord Bates
I am very happy to look into those two cases for the noble Lord to ensure we get this right. The message has to be clear, and we have to recognise that we have a duty to welcome people coming in to contribute to our economy and to show them the appropriate respect.
I am happy, should the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, think it an offer worth accepting, to convene a meeting of interested peers and colleagues with our people from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who have ownership of the universities sector and the tier 2 and tier 4 issues, along with people from the Home Office and immigration enforcement, to discuss how we can tackle these problems and the reasons we are not getting the right message out. We can work together to ensure that our fantastic offer on the world stage is communicated loud and clear: that people from around the world with genuine qualifications and places at great British universities are very welcome and that we are very grateful to them; that, post-study, they will have immense opportunities in this country; and that we would like them to stay and contribute, if they are qualified to do so.
Lord Bilimoria
We have all asked for one thing. We are all great ambassadors for British universities—we are their greatest fans—and we will continue to be, but we are asking for one thing. The Prime Minister has said he is open to the idea, and I am sure the Chancellor would be. We are asking the Government to categorise international students separately, in the way that, as we have shown, the USA, Canada and Australia do. That one move would send out a message. The Minister talked about perception. It would remove that perception once and for all. Why can the Government not do it?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord, who knows this area inside out, knows that we looked at that very carefully. It is true that the United States separates that category out, but when it calculates net migration, it adds it back in. The United States behaves differently because it does not have a net migration target. We do, and therefore we have chosen to include students in the numbers.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
Would the noble Lord not consider publishing the two statistics side by side, as the Americans do? We could have the net migration figures, but let us also have the figures excluding the students, so that the population can judge for themselves whether the targets have been met.
Lord Bates
Given the gap in the numbers, which we do not yet fully understand, the Government are not comfortable enough to take the heat from our heels—as it were—on the immigration statistics by providing a potentially sharp change in the net migration numbers. It might give us a degree of comfort that is not borne out in reality. The better our data and intelligence, the better able we will be to say to universities, “Listen, your responsibility is not just to attract people here, to ensure they are qualified to come and to give them a great education, but to ensure that, when their time is up and their visa has expired, they go home and use that education to build another career”. There are many ways we can all work together, and I am simply extending the opportunity to continue the dialogue—I am sure it will continue on the Floor of the House, but such dialogue can sometimes be engaged in more constructively with officials from different departments off the Floor—should it be helpful to the noble Baroness. I am grateful to her for raising this matter.
Trade Union Bill
(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Prosser
“Codes of practice: employee engagement
In section 203 of the 1992 Act (issue of Codes of Practice by the Secretary of State), after subsection (1) insert—“The Codes of Practice issued by the Secretary of State for the purpose of promoting the improvement of industrial relations must encourage all employers, in both the private and public sectors, to establish mechanisms via trade unions that encourage and enable effective employee engagement in industrial relations.””
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to the amendment because it is about the only part of the Bill that strikes a truly positive note. The Bill itself is entirely negative, and the other amendments—those we have heard already and those yet to come—are designed as a damage-limitation exercise to stop the Government making a complete hash of industrial relations and complete fools of themselves.
As a trade union organiser over many years, I met many ordinary workers who had great ideas about ways to improve work processes or systems. Even the humble road sweeper—in the days when we had them—could make suggestions about bettering route arrangements, for example. I will not, however, rely simply on anecdotal points; there is ample evidence regarding the link between employee engagement and morale, and employee engagement and productivity.
The Involvement and Participation Association, in which I declare an interest as a board director, has recently produced a report entitled Involvement and Productivity—the Missing Piece of the Puzzle?, in which it looks at the influence on productivity in workplaces that have good levels of employee engagement. This is not small beer. We in this country have a very poor record on productivity. We are 17% less productive than the rest of the G7, while the average worker in France and Germany produces more in four days than does the average worker in the UK in five. The report examines evidence from large surveys, behavioural experiments, academic studies and employers themselves, and shows that when employees have a voice in the decision-making process over their jobs and the wider organisation, productivity is higher.
The report also looks at how employees feel about involvement in their workplaces. Just one in three workers felt that managers allowed them to influence, or have a say in, decisions, and employers in the UK are less likely than global competitors to encourage workplace involvement. In many EU countries, for example, solid trade union agreements run alongside works councils. Matters are not helped in the UK by the decline in collective bargaining and the fact that mechanisms for employee voices to be heard are few and far between.
A concrete example of a successful exercise may help to persuade Ministers of the sense of this case. For many years, Royal Mail was renowned for its poor industrial relations. From my six years of experience as a non-executive director of the Royal Mail holdings board, I can say categorically that the problem lay with both management and the union, neither of which for a very long time had any knowledge or experience of workplaces outside Royal Mail. However, a programme was introduced under the then chairmanship of Allan Leighton entitled Great Place to Work. This involved various strands, such as First Line Fix, which enabled local managers to take decisions about local issues, rather than having to send everything to national level for a decision.
For example, when a local clothes dryer broke down and was not repaired for months—meaning that posties had no means of drying their soaked uniforms—it made everyone very fed up and resentful of the company. What was the matter with it? First Line Fix got the dryer mended within a week.
A Great Place to Work also involved work-time listening and learning sessions, discussing ideas from all in a section about ways in which things could work better—ordinary employees advising managers on improving workplace systems. Listening and learning has continued and was felt to be extremely important during the difficult period of privatisation of the company. Engagement scores have improved significantly even through the privatisation process.
Employee engagement is about not only productivity but morale. How do any of us feel if we have no control over what goes on in our lives? Does what we think have no value? Can we be engaged in a process or a subject matter over years and years and still have nothing to say about it? It does not make sense, for either the morale of the worker or the future of the employment, be that big or small.
The world of work is made up of workers and employers—managers. But there is no mention of managers in the Bill. How are we to develop and grow and compete in the wider world when we pay so little attention to the role of the manager? Quite often, even senior managers pay no attention to the behaviour, training, ability—or whatever—of their junior managers. According to the Chartered Management Institute, only 13% of managers in this country have any management training. That is shocking. Here we are, spending our time arguing about problems with trade unions that mostly do not even exist.
Finally, I ask the Minister not to cite the Government’s view of red tape and their dislike of it. Please do not say that the Government cannot be doing with the nanny state, because everything about the Bill is about unwanted red tape by the mile and the Government poking into areas about which they are shamefully ignorant and where neither workers nor employers want them to.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Prosser on her amendment. I can pay her no higher compliment than I wish I had thought of it myself. I was a junior Minister in the previous Labour Government, who supported the concept of employee engagement. As I understand it, the present Government continue to support that concept. The amendment gives the Government an opportunity to put something positive into the Bill that is direly needed.
As it stands, the Bill is really a lost opportunity. It does not address the real problems facing British industry: low productivity, which has already been referred to by my noble friend; skill shortages; and a lack of management training, which she also referred to. There are so many examples of the value of constructive engagement between employers and employees involving trade unions. Unionlearn was referred to in a previous debate. Health and safety was given a thorough airing on a previous day in Committee. There are examples of where industries have been in serious trouble, as the automotive industry was, where the trade union movement has shown itself more than capable of being involved in very constructive engagement. My noble friend referred to Royal Mail. I could give your Lordships numerous examples from British Telecom, where I was involved. I declare my interest as a lifelong trade unionist. Unions can make a really positive contribution to government policy.
I will quote a couple of examples that do not involve trade unions because we know that there are plenty of workplaces where they are not involved. There was an article in the Evening Standard on 11 September last year about Sacha Romanovitch. It said:
“Sacha Romanovitch is a breath of fresh air. It’s not only that she’s the first female boss of a major City accountancy firm”,
it is the things that she has introduced. It continues:
“The new chief executive of Grant Thornton, in effect their senior partner … has already announced a John Lewis-style profit sharing scheme and a cap on her own salary. Her pay will be limited to 20 times the firm’s average salary—compared with the average FTSE 100 chief executive on 149 times”—
whether they are all worth it is a moot point. The article goes on to say that,
“profits will be shared among all 4500 staff instead of the most senior, and the profit share will come from boosted profits generated by more collaborative working”.
I stress that last phrase because that shows the benefit of it.
Another example, which I saw in the Times in April last year, is a company called Gripple, which makes agricultural wire joiners in Sheffield. It is an interesting company. According to the article,
“it employs 500 people and has a turnover of more than £50 million. Hugh Facey, the entrepreneur behind the business, is as original as his invention. He doesn’t run the business to make money for himself, he claims”—
I have not had a chance to check that out but I will give him the benefit of the doubt for the rest of the things he does—
“but to provide jobs to local workers”.
Goodness knows we need that in British industry. The article continues:
“Rewards are shared throughout the company, because every employee has to own shares in the business, giving them a collective stake of 36 per cent—and a say in how it is run”.
It is that last point that I want to emphasise: another good example of employee engagement.
Some of the Government’s policies are right. I am with them on their approach to apprenticeships. We might argue about the detail but their drive to increase the number of apprenticeships is a very worthy objective. It would be much easier if, instead of discussing this Bill, we had a Bill that talked about involving trade unions in that campaign to increase the number of apprenticeships, which is why I talk about a lost opportunity.
I cannot help reflecting on my experience of negotiating with senior management in BT—and this applies to many companies throughout the UK—and their love of employing external consultants. They would think nothing of employing McKinsey for a few million pounds. I said to them on many occasions, “I am not going to tell you that you should not do it—I know you won’t take any notice—but while you are doing that it just might occur to you that you have about 140,000 consultants, and you are paying them anyway. If anybody can tell you what’s wrong with various parts of the company and how to improve productivity and profits, it is your employees. You ought to start listening to them far more than you do at the moment”, and I gave them many practical examples. My noble friend Lady Prosser pointed out a significant fact in British industry: the level of management training is really abysmal. We still have a long way to go on that. The need for employee engagement is paramount.
I am sure that we will have some comments from the Minister about the wording of the amendment. I do not think that my noble friend Lady Prosser or I say that everything is perfect. The amendment has been pitched at the fact that this is a Trade Union Bill and we know that there are significant areas of interest where trade unions are not involved. The core principle of the amendment is valid. It says:
“The Codes of Practice issued by the Secretary of State for the purpose of promoting the improvement of industrial relations must encourage all employers”—
I stress “encourage”—
“in both the private and public sectors, to establish mechanisms via trade unions that encourage and enable effective employee engagement in industrial relations”.
There is a real opportunity for the Minister to prove that the Government are in fact in listening mode and to inject something positive into the Bill.
I will end on a quote. I cannot match the intellectual capacity of my noble friend who quoted Chekhov—or at least, I could not find a quote that was apposite—but I thought this one would do. It comes from a song written by a couple of my favourites, Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer:
“You’ve got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative”.
That is my advice to the Minister and I look forward to her response.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Prosser for moving this amendment. After the rest of the Bill, which was like trudging through a freezing Arctic wilderness, this is like relaxing in a warm bath and savouring the moment. The subject of Royal Mail was raised earlier. When I first got to ACAS and tried to book the best rooms in the building for a meeting I was told, “No, you can’t have those rooms. They are set aside for six weeks”. I said, “Why on earth are you setting aside those three best rooms for six weeks?”. I was told, “Well, that’ll be the Royal Mail dispute”. So the job, as I saw it, was to eliminate the recidivists and accentuate good employment relations. I know that ACAS saw that as its job. I should say that I am in receipt of a small pension from ACAS before I go on to praise it.
This amendment sums up what ACAS is about. Without going into detail, because I am going to take only two minutes, it produces high-quality reports on employment relations and how to improve productivity and employee engagement. It has a helpline which took 1 million calls a year when I was the chair—it is probably more now—assisting both employers and employees, while its website was consistently praised by HR managers in every industry. ACAS knows the value of good employment relations and about the important work of trade unions.
My noble friend Lady Prosser mentioned the Involvement and Participation Association, of which I am very proud to be a vice-president. It encourages partnership working and employee/trade union engagement, produces reports and promulgates examples of good practice to encourage others. Finally, as a fellow of the CIPD, which also promotes good employment relations as a route to improving productivity, attendance and staff morale, I say that this amendment acts as a welcome contrast to the rest of the Bill, which is such a lost opportunity, as my noble friend Lord Young said. We could have been discussing how to improve our productivity and provide a skilled workforce. Every study from the organisations that I have mentioned, including the workplace employment relations study that ACAS always supported and helped to finance, proves time and again the importance of positive employment relations. I very much hope that the Minister will take this amendment on board in the spirit in which it is intended.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friends Lady Prosser, Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Mendelsohn, who have put their names to this amendment. I spoke at some length at Second Reading and I will not repeat that today, as much of what I wish to say has already been said. However, at Second Reading I talked about not just trade unions but the millions of workers who are as yet not members of a union. A series of analyses indicates that many of them lead unhappy lives at work. They do not make the contribution at work that they would like to, while the benefit of what they could add to companies’ quality and output is not taken into account. I said that we needed to think in a more positive frame of mind about how we can engage people in unions, and those who are as yet not in unions, to better our economic performance and well-being in this country.
At the end of that speech, I pleaded with the Minister to go back and look at the information and consultative council regulations introduced back in 2005 by Tony Blair’s Government. At the end of Second Reading, she had a lot of people to respond to and she did not address that issue—in fairness to her, it was probably because she saw that she needed to speak on other topics. When she responded to me she spoke on something else—check-off, which we were dealing with earlier in the day. But like my colleagues I hope that I can urge her or her Whip, who may be looking at the subject with a fresh pair of eyes, to take this part of the debate away and look carefully at what we have had to say. It is about progress and making a better life for employers and employees.
Following my noble friend Lady Donaghy, I have had a look at some recent documents issued by ACAS. It says:
“Information and consultation are the basic building blocks of every effective organisation. These concepts are as crucial to the relationship between the individual workers and their line manager as they are to”,
any other parties. It continues:
“Whatever the size or type of your organisation people need to talk to each other. They need to … exchange views and ideas … issue and receive instructions … discuss problems … consider developments”.
ACAS goes on to list a range of topics that are worthy of joint consultation between employees and their managers, including organisational performance, management performance and decision-making, employees’ performance and commitment, levels of trust, job satisfaction and work/life balance. The list goes on and on.
In many workplaces, unions are there but such discussions are not taking place in the way that they should. There are even more workplaces around the country where the voiceless have no means whereby they can engage properly with their managers to the overall improvement of the operation of those businesses and companies. That is to the detriment of not only the individuals in and owners of businesses but the company at large. My noble friend Lady Prosser has been extraordinarily agile in finding a way to bring an amendment to a Bill whose primary focus is on what I would see as negatives relating to trade unions. However, this amendment gives the Government a chance to put a positive there, as my colleagues have been pleading, and this time around I hope that we will get a positive response to our points.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I too hope that this session provides a little light relief for the Minister, who has had quite a hard time through various sessions of the Bill. It has been a bit like a series of one-sided OK Corrals. Over lunch, I thought I might ask the Minister whether she has any genes from Stonewall Jackson, that great Confederate general. The other metaphorical point I would make is that he ended up being shot by his own side—accidentally. I hope the Government at least allow the Minister to make the concessions in the Bill which will be her salvation.
Amendment 97A is welcome in providing a wider debate on where we are going and I would like to make a number of points. Employment engagement is very important to improving the country’s competitive position, and to improving services in the public sector. As someone who has been in industry, I certainly feel that we have far too much dependence on adversarial systems and processes—I sense this in our politics as well—when engagement and working together on problems normally provides much better solutions.
I am certainly one of those who welcomes unions and sees their important role in society and industry but, sadly, the reality is that although the unions remain strong in the public sector they have become weak in the private sector. However we may regret that, we have to make the point that although unions are important there has also to be a diversity of systems that can work well. We see that in companies such as Marks & Spencer and John Lewis, and many foreign-owned companies where processes have been developed not necessarily strictly through recognised trade unions. This is very important in the public sector, where we in this country will no longer have a great and dominant manufacturing sector—although we might like to aspire to that—but will be much more dependent on services. That requires the motivation of employees and will be especially important in the public sector; it is certainly important in the private sector. That is why an adversarial system is no longer totally relevant to improving industrial relations.
I welcome the spirit of this amendment, the thinking behind it and the opportunity to have a general debate, however briefly, on this important subject.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
I congratulate and thank my noble friend Lady Prosser for introducing this amendment and will set out why it is particularly important. It was a sheer pleasure in the previous debate to listen to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and to the good sense that came from all parts of the Chamber. I hope that the Government are very much in listening mode and can perhaps hear a case for change. I will set out why the Bill merits some sort of change.
An interesting feature of the coalition Government was that every year, we would read in the papers and in blogs that Conservative Ministers would present this very Bill to Liberal Democrat Ministers. Each year, they would say, “Together, we could do in the Labour Party, which would undoubtedly be to our benefit”. Each year, to their considerable credit, the Liberal Democrats would block the Bill. I am sure that some noble Lords present today were witnesses to this annual event. It was no surprise that the Government, given the opportunity, chose to use a huge legislative sledgehammer to target—and in some ways to torture and weaken—their perceived enemies or to make life a little difficult.
This is unfortunate, not just for the well-being of those who are perceived to be the enemies but because it highlights that the Bill has yet to pass a strong public interest test. During our debates, we looked at the “will the sky fall in?” test. It probably will not, but we have certainly not met the “unattractive consequences” test. We have had a good debate about the impact on the regions and on devolution, and whether or not this will weaken the union; I do not think it has met the test that it will not. We also had a debate about what the point of this is, and looked at whether it passes the test of minimising the harm it might cause.
However, the Bill does need to pass the “making a positive difference” test—not just to trade union members but to the public and the national interest. This is what this amendment is about: the role and work of trade unions in a modern society. As a businessman, I would say that this is also about the massive opportunity we have to use workforces and trade unions for better purposes. The Bill has a stunning lack of meaningful objectives, such as targets, goals or definable and provable outcomes. We have seen repeatedly that there is no evidence to establish that there is a problem to justify the solutions. There is no cost-benefit analysis and no meaningful consideration of the consequences of its measures. It lays regulation on obligation on cost on restriction on complication on Whitehall centralisation. It really is time for a bit of light.
The amendment also passes a very important legislative test, which is that it tempers the Bill with proportionality, purpose, principle and practicality. I strongly believe that government Front-Benchers in this House have clean fingerprints on the design of this Bill. They are respected in this House and do credit to a tradition in their political party and to our country’s political culture and traditions—the debate we had earlier attests to that. I have been very encouraged by the debates during Committee and the strong consensus for changes to the Bill in so many areas, but I fear that the dull hand of the other House will compress the capacity of our House to ameliorate the Bill and that the power of the arguments made so ably by so many will not receive the proper response. I hope Members there are listening not just to what we say about the measures they have introduced but to this very welcome addition.
In that capacity, I am very pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in her place. She of course plays a very important role as a special adviser with a particular responsibility supporting the Minister of State for Skills in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on trade union reform—a kind of facility time for the Conservative Party. It is very important for the message to be conveyed to the Minister and to those who have held the debates in the other House that there is an opportunity here to do something which restores a bit of balance and addresses the great tragedy of the Bill, which is that it is not about reform for a great purpose.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, as well as my noble friend, for giving me the opportunity to respond to this fascinating debate covering many different aspects of the great relationship.
The Government recognise the positive role that trade unions can play in the workplace. In a debate last November brought by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, the House debated that positive role. During that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, highlighted from her personal experience some of the important contributions that trade unions can make. Having read the debate and looked carefully at what she said, in the last paragraph of her speech, she mentioned the partnership between workforce and management and how important it was that that worked efficiently for all concerned. I could not agree more.
My experience in this field, apart from a brief period in the 1970s when I was working on the shop floor in an engineering firm in the West Midlands—which was an interesting experience for someone from my background—was up until 2010, when I was a contract manager in the construction industry. I worked for an SME, the backbone of the British economy. We employed 25 to 30 people. I was involved in sending people out to work, finding them work and such like. It was so important that those relationships worked and that there was the engagement mentioned by many noble Lords. It was a non-unionised workforce, but it still worked very well, whether on health and safety or training, but then we were a committed organisation. We worked well with the workforce and it was mutually beneficial.
The noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Brooke, talked about the importance of employee engagement. I recognise that, and we know that businesses understand it too. The CBI 2015 employment trends survey highlighted that the top priorities for businesses in the coming year are better leadership and employee engagement to foster productive workforces. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also referred to information and consultation regulations and said that employees are voiceless in some organisations. Under the information and consultation regulations, employees have a right to request a formal workplace agreement for engagement. That does not apply to workplaces of less than 50 employees—the sort of organisation I was involved with—but employees have greater influences in those workplaces anyway. Also, as we have heard, many employers involve employees in decision-making processes because it makes good business sense.
We have acknowledged that unions can play an important role in the workplace and have heard many examples in many debates in your Lordships’ House. However, productivity, which was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Prosser and Lady Donaghy, is not influenced solely by the presence of unions, but by capital investment, innovation and dynamism of markets—they all have potential to increase productivity, given current record high employment levels. Data from the OECD do not directly indicate a link between trade union density and productivity, but I realise that there are different figures from a wide range of sources. We are very conscious that productivity has to rise, and we are doing a great deal in this area, which I will not go into at present. We also understand the importance of a well-motivated workforce.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, mentioned apprenticeships, as I suspected he might. The Government accept that apprenticeships and training are key to improving productivity, which is why we are committed to the 3 million apprenticeship starts in England over this Parliament and to making sure that they are of the highest quality possible. We know that the trade union movement will play its part in helping us to deliver this commitment. For example, last year the TUC and the CBI signed a joint commitment to support and promote apprenticeships and traineeships for young people.
It is not right that we restrict how employee engagement can happen. The current approach is flexible and means that businesses have a variety of ways in which to engage with and involve their employers in their businesses. Currently, employers and employees can decide the best mechanisms for engagement and tailor this to address individual workplace needs. This may or may not involve representation through a trade union. The choice for individuals to join or not join a trade union is important. Many workplaces and sectors are not as heavily unionised, and alternative or additional methods have been created for engaging with employers effectively. Therefore, we do not believe that we should restrict the type of engagement that we promote. I do not believe that this amendment will improve industrial relations or employee engagement. But we will take careful note of what has been said.
Baroness Prosser
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am not sure that I made it clear in my speech that employee engagement is conducted in workplaces that are unionised and in those that are not unionised. It is not something that sits separately from trade unionism or can only sit alongside trade unionism; it works in companies where there are good union relations but insufficient attention is paid to ways in which employees can participate and contribute to a debate and in places where there are no mechanisms for engagement. So it is not one or t’other; it goes across both kinds of workplaces.
The Earl of Courtown
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I shall read carefully what she said. Having taken all that into account, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I made the point in my contribution that we did not think that the wording was initially absolutely perfect, but there were constraints on the wording, as we have already heard, given the nature of the Bill. It would be useful to hear from the Minister that they would be willing to meet us to discuss the potential of improving employee engagement.
Lord Mendelsohn
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot resist making one point on employee engagement. As we move on to the Certification Officer, the measures that we are about to debate would certainly have hugely benefited from some form of employee engagement. I noted in the evidence of the Certification Officer of 9 February to the Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding that he was asked whether he was consulted about the measures that related to party funding. He said:
“No, I was not consulted”.
He was asked a broader question on whether he was consulted at all and he said, “Not before the Bill”. These measures have the hallmark of something that would have greatly benefited from being examined carefully, and if advice, experience and evidence had been sought from the Certification Officer.
The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 clearly intended that the Certification Officer should be accountable primarily to trade union members and that he was to codify reports on compliance, have powers of investigation and intervention and deal with complaints. With the breaches of any rules, remedies were underpinned by law. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in the previous debate, gave us a very good understanding of how this was to deal with the issue of a significant foundation about how members felt about the unions and where the unions were. We can certainly agree with that. But we now move on to something where we are substantially and almost completely changing the role and function of the Certification Officer and muddying the waters tremendously.
In his evidence, the Certification Officer was asked about whether the problems about complaints were consistent with his understanding. He said:
“All rules can be improved. No one has complained to me at any time that they have been impaired in making a complaint or pursuing what they want to do. Of course, that does not mean that they do not feel that way—it is just that it has not been reported to me. The answer to the first part of your question is that I am not sure; there is no evidence of that”.
He went on to say:
“The Bill approaches it from a totally different perspective. They are not trying to tinker with what exists; they want a new model. I do not think it is fair to say that it is successful or not successful in perfecting the existing model”.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with long-standing trade union members on the other side of the Committee. First, who really likes change, and, secondly, who really wants more regulation? Our whole economy is tied up in string with regulation. It was a delight to hear Labour shadow Ministers arguing against more regulation and complaining about regulators being investigators, prosecutors and adjudicators, which I assure him they are in practice across most areas of regulation, whatever little committees might exist to alleviate it.
We are in a world where institutions that serve the public and with which the public has dealings are regulated, and increasingly so. I am afraid that I do not really see any logic as to why the trade union movement should have special exemption from regulation. Trade unions have the scope to break the law, they have the scope to do things that they should not do and they have the scope to cause inconvenience to the public. Therefore, to argue that they are a world unto themselves is not valid. Some regulation may be needed to protect members from being overlorded by their trade union leaders.
Under the provisions of the Bill, the enhanced powers of the Certification Officer are meek and mild. They are extraordinarily modest in comparison with the powers of regulators in other sectors. The noble Lord should just try working in the financial services sector if he has not done so already. Everyone spends their whole time looking over their shoulder for fear that they are going to break a regulation. There are so many regulations, comprising something like 4 million words and I have forgotten how many tomes.
Lord Mendelsohn
I do work in the financial services sector. I operate under the FCA and am a regulated individual.
Lord Flight
I am glad to hear that; the noble Lord will know all about it then. But he is probably about to enter the new senior managers’ regime where he will find that the extent of his regulation will increase substantially.
If really heavy-handed regulation was being imposed on trade unions, there would be a fair argument. However, what is in the Bill is very meek.
Lord Monks (Lab)
Is not the real case that there was a massive problem in the financial and banking sector? There was a huge crash that led to lots of people having very serious troubles, and we are still not fully recovered from that to this day. The number of abuses is enormous. In the small world of trade unions, however, there are hardly any abuses, and those that do happen are dealt with by the Certification Officer on behalf of any member who wishes to apply. Opening the door to say that they can take a complaint from anybody and demand this and demand that, and to charge the union for the privilege, involve employer consultants and so on, is no equivalent at all. What the banks did rocked this society to its roots. The unions have not done that.
Lord Flight
I would dearly love to embark on a long debate with the noble Lord on the banking crash, but it was essentially caused in America and not in this country. I do not think that the regulations that have come in since have done very much to prevent another financial crisis arising in the future. They always arise and there is nothing new about them—just look at economic history. But I am glad to have livened the Committee up a little, perhaps.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The other issue that is constantly reported on the radio is that of mis-selling, which created a huge crisis across the financial sector. I do not understand how that equates to breaches of trade union rules.
Lord Flight
I will dig myself in deeper and say that, to my mind, a great deal of the mis-selling issue is unjustified. First, if you go out and buy a new or second-hand car, you buy what you see. Individuals have some personal responsibility for determining what they buy. Secondly, and more specific to the whole area of mortgages, it was largely about inflation reducing dramatically and returns differing substantially. The simple point is that financial services are at one end of the spectrum and, arguably, trade unions are at the other. It is unreasonable not to accept that the behaviour of trade unions can be extremely inconvenient, if not damaging, to the public at large. Therefore, there is a public interest here.
This group of amendments is about cancelling or dumbing down some parts of the Certification Officer’s modest new powers. It seems to me that the powers in question are really not of the substantial importance that the noble Lord suggested. Specifically, the amendments are to remove the new investigatory powers in the Bill and remove the power to investigate in the absence of a complaint by a member. Surely the public have some right to complain if they feel that they have a complaint, and surely a regulator—even a modest regulator—ought to be there to investigate. To say that the trade union itself can investigate does not comply with the government standards of our times, which require some degree of individual investigation.
As we are all aware, the Bill provides the Certification Officer with additional powers he can use proactively to investigate breaches of trade union statutory requirements in relation to political funds, union mergers, internal leadership elections and appointing to, or failing to remove from, a union a person convicted of certain financial offences. It does not seem unreasonable that a very modest regulator should have the power to look at those territories. The Certification Officer ought to be able to investigate formal complaints, not just when lodged by a member but in response to information raised by third parties. Again, his powers beyond investigating are not that great. I do not see why the trade union sector should not be as transparent as any other.
There is a key addition in principle behind what is in the Bill, which is regulation on behalf of the public. The wider public has an interest in trade union conduct where, as I said, unions can by industrial action and in other ways inconvenience the public and damage the economy. Likewise, the investigatory powers cover areas relating to statutory requirements that are of relevance to the public as well as to trade union members.
I note that the Electoral Commission, which is somewhat, if not entirely, analogous to the trade union movement, can impose larger financial penalties. While the Certification Officer has only the discipline of civil penalties, the Electoral Commission can escalate an issue to a criminal offence. I do not propose that that should be the case in trade union regulation, but it illustrates that these measures are pretty modest. On the issue of bearing the costs, again, the industries affected invariably bear the cost of regulation, but I cannot see that what is envisaged here will cost very much at all. I repeat the key point: at present, what exists is purely to protect the interests of members and what is proposed is to protect the interests of the public. That is not an unreasonable change.
I close by saying that I cannot see that there is much in these provisions that is at all inherently damaging to trade unions if they are conducting their affairs in a proper manner. I would have thought, therefore, that it would be a wise strategy to accept the measures, comply with them and make them as unonerous as possible.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)
I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I return to a point that I made at Second Reading, which is that we are talking here about restrictions on Article 11 rights—the right to freedom of assembly. That is a right that I believe all parties are committed to.
The European Convention on Human Rights sets out the permissible purposes for which a restriction may be placed on the right. It is only those permissible purposes that count. They include, for example, the protection of public health, the protection of other liberty rights and the protection of privacy. But the idea that they include general protection of the public and consumer rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, has suggested—not merely today but on earlier occasions—is mistaken. Consumer rights are extremely important, but they are the creature of statute; they are not fundamental rights. I do not believe—and from letters that the Minister has written, that she believes—that those would constitute a sufficient reason for restricting freedom of assembly.
Freedom of assembly is very precious not just for trade unions but for many other groups, including, as I suggested at Second Reading, churches and other faith groups. We must be extremely careful that, when we start thinking about what is proportionate, we remember that it has to be necessary and proportionate for a permitted purpose and not for any old purpose. As the Minister has already said, administrative convenience would not be a sufficient purpose. I suggest that consumer protection and some generic idea about the public are also not sufficient purposes.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I want to make some general points about the Government’s proposal on the Certification Officer in addition to the amendments, but first I thank my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn for such a comprehensive coverage of this subject. In my view the TUC summed it up: this is a disproportionate response to an unidentified problem, and I fully agree. The Minister will be pleased to know that although I am going to take slightly longer on this amendment, I will be as brief as possible on my technical and probing amendments later, which may give her an opportunity to think about the exit door and her throat; certainly before 7 pm and I hope a lot sooner.
My first point is one that I am sure everyone understands, but it needs to be put on the record. The Certification Officer is a public servant who carries out his work with diligence and integrity, and I am sure that all future postholders will do the same. We are not and should not be discussing the role of the individual CO. The officeholder will carry out whatever function the Government of the day give them, and I have no doubt that they will do that to the best of their ability. Secondly, I do not question the right of any Government to promote policies that change the nature of a post or a role, no matter how unnecessary and churlish those policies might be. Thirdly, I do not challenge the right of a Government to increase expenditure without providing the direct means to fund it. One could challenge the wisdom, but not the right.
However, I do challenge on the following matters: unfairness, lack of evidence, the one-sided nature of the proposals, the politicisation of the role of the Certification Officer, the necessity for any substantial change and, finally, the Kafkaesque proposal to make trade unions pay for unnecessary government-imposed red tape. On the issue of unfairness, I am grateful to the Equality and Human Rights Commission for supporting these amendments. Others will no doubt deal in more detail with the EHRC’s evidence, and indeed have already done so, but I shall just repeat the quotation given by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn because it bears repeating. It states that,
“the new proactive character of the CO’s functions (i.e. the power to instigate, investigate and then adjudicate the same complaint) compromises the impartiality of the CO”.
The commission has dealt comprehensively with the problems caused by Clause 15 and I thank it for doing so.
The clause is one-sided because it will have very little impact on employers’ associations. According to the impact assessment, the familiarisation costs will be £2,400 to be met by 93 employer organisations. That represents 26p per employer organisation, although no doubt that will vary depending on the size of the employers’ association. So we are talking of an average of 26p per employer organisation. The estimated cost of familiarisation to the trade unions is £525,000. The actual levy of £1.9 million per year will be covered in secondary legislation, and there may be variations depending on the size of the trade union, any exemptions or other issues about which we have absolutely no knowledge. We will not be able to change it, and yet it will be of considerable importance to at least 7 million people. But if we look at the division of the cost of the levy between the trade unions and the employers’ associations based on the same division as the familiarisation costs, it comes out as 0.5% of the £1.9 million levy for employers’ associations and 99.5% of it to be met by the trade unions. That is why it is one-sided. I accept that the impact assessment may be completely wrong in its calculations, and I know that there is to be some consultation with employers and trade unions about the levy in the future. I ask that Cabinet guidelines be adhered to and that this will not be yet just another appearance at the August-fest.
The trade unions will have less money because of the ban on deduction from salaries and will be now levied for the bulk of expenditure that, up to now, has been paid from public funds. That is unfair. It will politicise the role of the CO because any third party will be able to ask for an investigation. The purpose of my amendments, and the probing amendments in the following groups, is to ensure that it is trade union members who can complain, not a daily newspaper or Conservative Central Office.
While I am on the subject, I ask the Minister whether there is a typing error on page 77 paragraph 280 of the impact assessment. Under “Rationale for Intervention”—it is “rationale” used in its loosest sense—it says:
“The main market failure arguments which underpin the existence of a regulator are externalities which occur because of union behaviour and imperfect information between employers and trade unions”.
That has to be a typo. If it is not, it reveals a worrying ignorance of the role of the CO. Surely it should read “employees and trade unions”. I hope that I can be reassured on this.
The impact assessment also comes out with the admirable understatement:
“It is likely that the Certification Officer may receive more representations from 3rd parties”.
There is an attempt to reassure us that the representations would need to meet the two tests that,
“the Certification Officer can only require documents if there is good cause to do so and can only investigate where there are circumstances to suggest that a union could be in breach of a duty”.
The impact assessment calculates that the increase in investigations as a result of these changes is likely to be limited. That may well be true of formal investigations, but that does not take into account the actual work involved processing any representations short of a formal investigation. This creates an unnecessary industry. There is no evidence whatever that anybody wants it, and, to add insult to injury, the trade unions will be picking up the tab for something that nobody wants.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in this group, in particular Amendments 98 and 99, and to the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. If I ever wondered why I joined a liberal party, almost every day that we have discussed the Bill I have been given a clear and stark reminder. Today is no different. Clause 15 goes to the heart of the role of free trade unions in a free and liberal society. State interference in the organisation of freely associated people should be contemplated only where there is compelling and overwhelming evidence that it is required.
The comparison between what is proposed here and the financial services industry, which the noble Lord, Lord Flight, made, is entirely specious. The banks beggared our economy and it was millions of trade unionists and other workers who paid the price. What was the first action of the Tory party in government freed from coalition? It was to let the bankers off the hook by reversing the change we had made in the coalition of reversing the burden of proof, and it was to go after the trade unions with this Bill. It says everything we need to know about the Tory party.
Returning to the amendments, a regulator exists in the form of the Certification Officer with a modest and proportional role. The powers and obligations on the regulator will be massively increased if the Government have their way and the grubby and grasping hand of state interference and control will have been further extended. A sensible, modest and proportionate regulator will have been turned into a monster capable—if not intent on—suffocating democratic trade unions in red tape. There will be a vast expansion of the powers and obligations of the Certification Officer. As noble Lords have said, he or she will now be investigator, prosecutor and adjudicator, compelled to investigate the complaints not of trade union members but of any third-party complainant. An array of right-wing organisations and individuals are doubtless preparing their vexatious complaints, led—I have no doubt—by the TaxPayers’ Alliance. Why is this happening? What evidence has been brought forward to justify this unwarranted new interference in the operation of free trade unions? The Government proffer none. The current Certification Officer says that there is none.
In the Select Committee, my noble friend Lord Wrigglesworth asked the Certification Officer where he thought the pressure had come from. He replied that he had no evidence of pressure for change—although, to be fair to the Government, they would have had no way of knowing that prior to the Bill being published. Why would they not have known? Because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, noted, at the same Select Committee hearing the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked the Certification Officer whether he had been consulted, and he replied that he had not been consulted. The transcript shows that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, then asked him again—one assumes incredulously—“You were not consulted at all?”. The answer was no. The Certification Officer—the person you assume would have been the first port of call to whom any Government actually interested in the evidence before them would have gone before even considering legislation—had not been consulted at all. That is astonishing—or at least it would be if we had the slightest thought that the Government’s intentions in this Bill were to address a genuine problem. Those are not their intentions. Every clause after those relating to the thresholds—the merits of which you could argue one way or the other; personally, I think they are unnecessary—is a nakedly partisan attack on free trade unions and the main opposition party. Although those trade unions and the main opposition party have often done no favours to the Liberal Democrats, there is something more important at stake here—the nature of our democracy.
Clause 15 will significantly increase the burdens on the regulator and on trade unions. The Certification Officer made clear in the evidence he gave that, in his opinion, as far as he could judge, the costs of the regulator would rise at least fourfold. Can the Minister explain to us how that can be justified? And can she explain on what basis she thinks it right that such a stark increase in the costs should be passed on to the trade unions instead of the Exchequer? For example, does she think that the Conservative Party should pay the costs of the Electoral Commission, or MPs pay the costs of IPSA? These are the relevant comparators. It might be reasonable to charge a levy on trade unions when the regulator was simply looking at members’ complaints, but it is most certainly not in the circumstances we are discussing.
The impact assessment is very weak on justification. It can claim only this justification:
“The actions of unions can have wider impacts beyond their membership and their operations may not always be transparent to the wider public”.
I could as easily replace the word “unions” with the words “Conservative Party”. Given the number of times we have heard the Government justify their position on this Bill by the claim that they have a mandate provided by the Conservative manifesto, might the public not have a legitimate interest in knowing how the content of that manifesto is decided? Should it, for example, be determined by an all-postal ballot of its members? Should there be a 50% threshold, and perhaps an additional threshold requirement that at least 40% of eligible members vote on any section determined to be nakedly partisan?
Given that less than 25% of eligible voters supported the Conservative manifesto at the last election, should the public not at least know that it was properly considered and voted on by Conservative members? Perhaps we should introduce amendments to that effect. But no, of course not. The state should not interfere in the operations of a voluntary association of citizens, unless there is a compelling and overwhelming need to do so. The Conservative Party used to believe that. Indeed, many on the Conservative Benches still do, as evidenced by their contributions in our previous discussion, but Ministers seem to have forgotten it. I appeal to my friends in the Government—if I still have any left after the Bill—to recall that traditional Conservative belief and to drop this obnoxious clause.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I am reluctant to detain the Committee longer than is necessary, but I would like to complement the remarks of my colleague, my noble friend Lord Oates, and will therefore contain my remarks on subsequent amendments.
We need to get to the root of the issue about why this reform, particularly this clause, is necessary. In evidence, as we have heard, the Certification Officer said that there was no evidence of pressure for change. The impact assessment contains some clever drafting. It says:
“At present there is scope to broaden the powers and sanctions available to the Certification Officer”.
But there is no real mention of what the need is and why it is so essential. It says that there is a need to do this to “ensure greater union compliance” and that the Certification Officer should have “more powerful sanctions” and extended powers to investigate. Why is that necessary?
I have also read the Certification Officer’s report. It was 10 years since I read the last one, so I read it twice: once to understand it, and then again to analyse the complaints made to the Certification Officer. And what I found was quite remarkable—this is where it differs from the financial sector. The sector has a turnover of £1 billion and 7 million members, which is not unsubstantial, yet what did we see in the Certification Officer’s report last year? We saw 57 complaints, 47 of which were on union rules and were made by 19 applicants. This is a mere handful of complaints.
I also analysed the costs. I am surprised that a Conservative Government do not respect an organisation that, since 2007-08, has reduced its expenditure—now at £560,000—by 16.5%. Of that expenditure, only £150,000 was spent on complaints. So where is this great build-up of complaints that makes necessary these additions to legislation to further control and examine and provide for extra sanctions?
On the rule of law, I think we can take issue with what has been said about the financial sector. Are trade unions a part of our society that does not believe in the rule of law in terms of the Certification Officer? Great detail is required in the submission of returns, in dealing with inquiries and, when dealing with complaints, in providing extra information. According to the analysis, 98.8% of all returns to this body come in on time. These are not organisations that are disregarding the rule of law in the current situation. So you have to ask why these extra powers are now required.
It is not easy for people who have been in the trade union movement to argue against third-party complainants but in any political organisation, there are cranks. The Conservative Party will have them as much as every other political party, and the trade unions have a number of cranks as well. If you open up complaints to third parties you open up to the world of cranks, and you have to ask: is there any sign of a build-up of complaints from third parties that needs to be answered? According to the Certification Officer, he had only 500 inquiries in the year of his last report, and 200 of those were probably just asking to see the accounts. They were not complaints, they were just general inquiries. There is absolutely no reason for this increased bureaucracy to be imposed on the trade unions. Frankly, in pretty much every other business sector the Conservative Government would totally reject this incursion.
The 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill had 303 clauses. Since then we have heard from the Certification Officer, and I have given the level of complaints and issues. It is actually working very well. Reading the evidence of the Certification Officer to the Select Committee, he seems a very honourable public servant of long standing and we should listen to his experience. As I say, this Bill has only 25 clauses yet the Government seem to think that it is required to further add to powers to investigate, enforce and so on with regard to the trade unions. There is no justification for this and we need an explanation of why the Government think it is necessary.
Lord Ouseley (CB)
My Lords, I want to make a very short contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has said virtually everything I was going to say, far better than I would be able to, and I am pleased about that. However, it is important to stress that Clause 15 represents an affront to fairness, justice and proportionality.
The Certification Officer’s independence, impartiality and integrity will be compromised by Clause 15. The new expansive investigatory powers and sanctions being vested in the Certification Officer, from the position of reasonableness, as we have heard, would in effect be likely to result in uncontrolled, unaccountable and non-independent interventions in trade unions’ reasonable and legitimate activities. There is no evidential basis to suggest that the expansion of powers is justified.
I will not repeat the assessment by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has been alluded to already, with regard to contraventions of the European Convention on Human Rights. I would like to reiterate one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, about Clause 15 and related schedules being relevant to the UK’s other legal obligations, particularly the International Labour Organization’s Convention 87 on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise. Will the Minister please indicate how the Government intend to respond to the ILO committee of experts’ request that the Government review a number of provisions in the Bill and provide comments on the proposals to extend the powers of the Certification Officer?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the sore throat that I have been keeping at bay all week overwhelmed me earlier so I apologise to the House. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for what I think I should call solidarity because she presented me with some Fisherman’s Friends so that I can get through the rest of today. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Courtown on his interesting contribution to the Committee’s proceedings, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate.
In our manifesto, we said that we would reform the role of the Certification Officer and we are doing just that with, it is fair to say, a great deal of scrutiny in this House. The Certification Officer has responsibility to consider complaints relating to important union processes. It is vital that we have confidence that those processes are conducted properly. For example, the Certification Officer can consider complaints in relation to union leadership elections, union mergers or the accuracy of trade union membership registers—which matter a lot if there is a ballot—or to ensuring the removal from a union office of a person who has been convicted of certain financial offences.
I would argue that there is a legitimate public interest in trade unions running their affairs according to what is required of them. It is not always the case that union members will know their union’s regulatory duties. That is why a responsive and diligent regulator is necessary. I hope that is agreed.
Lord Collins of Highbury
If I may interrupt, it is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is not here because it is important to remember that the reforms of the 1980s, if I am to believe him, were about ensuring that trade unions were representative of and controlled by their members. That is what those reforms were about. I am happy to place it on record that I do not want to see us ever go back on some of those laws. It is a real shame that the Minister is confusing those obligations of a free association, which are to be guaranteed, and then saying that there are other interests which need to be regulated. Can we not go back to what Margaret Thatcher said and ensure that we have free and fair trade unions, controlled by their members?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I do not think that I have a great deal to add on that point now but I have some observations which, with the noble Lord’s agreement, I will move on to. Before doing so, I will comment on the question which the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, rightly asked about whether we got the impact assessment wrong. My understanding is that it was not a mistake. The point is that the public in general have an interest in good regulation—in employers, in employees, in families and in the wider public. That is perhaps what we should have said. We are scrutinising this but I am not seeking to change the impact assessment, which has obviously been looked at carefully in the usual way.
Of course the provisions in the Bill have to be proportionate and give effective regulation. As I see it, we are bringing the current powers of the Certification Officer up to date with the accepted normal situation in other sectors. I shall leave the financial services sector on one side, because I want to get through the debate this evening, but perhaps I could give some other examples. There is the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which has been mentioned. The Charity Commission, the Electoral Commission, the Gambling Commission, Ofcom, the Food Standards Agency, the Environment Agency, Natural England, and Ofwat—it is a long list—can all consider representations from third parties and undertake investigations if appropriate.
I am not sure whether I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Oates, on the subject of the costs. The Certification Officer has given views on the potential costs necessary to undertake the new regulatory function and I understand that his comments were consistent with the estimates we have set out in the Bill’s impact assessment. I think he said, rightly in my view, “I do not want to employ rafts of people only for them to be underused. I want to see what happens and increase numbers as appropriate”. My understanding is that we agree that the annual cost will be around £2 million. However, to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, although I can confirm that the Certification Officer was not consulted before the Bill entered Parliament, we have engaged with him and will continue to do so as we move towards implementing the reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, suggested, we want to continue a tradition of good compliance.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
I am very reluctant to test the Minister’s voice, as I understand it is wavering a little, but she is proposing to increase the regulator’s costs by four times, and yet we are only going to see a modest increase in complaints. Is that a good use of money?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I think so. It is important that we have an up-to-date regulator. The £2 million that I mentioned is the upper end of the range in the impact assessment. Obviously, we do not know the figure for certain, and as we have said, we are going to continue to consult the Certification Office. Under a later amendment, we will come on to discuss the levy that will meet the cost.
Amendment 117A seeks to establish a separate independent adjudication panel whose decision will be required before the Certification Officer is able to exercise his powers under Clauses 15, 16 and 17 of this Bill. As I have already explained, it is common for regulators to make proactive investigations or to have the power to initiate investigations and then decide to take enforcement action where a breach of rules or statutory requirements is found—the point that was made about judge and jury. There are various regulatory models in the UK: many regulators—for example, the Information Commissioner, the Charities Commission and the Groceries Code Adjudicator—have internal processes for ensuring fair decision-making. They do not, however, have their decisions made by an entirely separate body that oversees their work.
In view of the Certification Officer’s independence—I emphasise to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, that this will be an independent regulator, not a political appointment—it is only right and proper that procedures for investigations and decisions will be up to the Certification Officer. The Certification Officer has in fact recently referred to his early thinking on how best to manage his functions in the light of the requirements in the Bill. A range of different models is used by regulators, and we will have further discussions about the implementation processes with his office. The union will also of course have the opportunity to make representations to the Certification Officer before any decision is made. There will continue to be a right of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Ouseley, asked whether the reforms were in breach of international obligations under the ECHR or ILO. It is important to be clear what the powers will be. The Certification Officer will be able to investigate and to determine whether there has been a breach, and then take enforcement. The decisions are then appealable, as I have said, to an independent tribunal. This is standard for regulators, and it has been established that this framework is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR.
I am very grateful for the work of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on human rights, both in this House and more generally in the country. She asked whether Article 11, the freedom of association provision, might be breached. The Government do not think that effective and proportionate regulation infringes Article 11 rights, and our reforms do not interfere with the right to join trade unions. Having said that, I have listened carefully to the points about the oversight of the Certification Officer’s decisions, and I would like to reflect on them in the light of discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, asked about access to sensitive data. He was concerned that the Certification Officer would have quite a bit of sensitive data—a concern close to my heart. As I have said, the CO is independent from Ministers; the Government will not be able to see any sensitive data that he or she may hold. When handling data, the CO and his or her inspectors will need to comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act. Any inspector whom the Certification Officer appoints will have a duty of confidentiality. The CO is also under a statutory duty to act consistently with rights conferred by the ECHR, as I have already said. Those are important provisions.
I come finally to the question that a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Oates, have raised about the risk of vexatious complaints using the new power. We are extending the potential to make complaints for members only to third parties. Concerns have also been raised that the Certification Officer might feel duty bound to examine all complaints, which could be very costly. I do not see it like that. Let me first reassure noble Lords that the obligations on concerns from third parties are different from those relating to union members. So while currently the Certification Officer must make inquiries following a complaint from a trade union member, he or she will be under no such obligation with concerns from third parties. He or she will be able to exercise judgment based on the evidence presented as to whether there are sufficient grounds for further investigation. The Certification Officer will remain independent, with responsibility for delivering against the statutory objectives. As I said, his or her enforcement decisions will remain subject to appeal.
Lord Oates
Has the noble Baroness consulted the Certification Officer in this respect? The evidence that he gave to the Select Committee does not suggest that his view is in line with hers. He was certainly concerned about judicial review if he did not investigate third-party complaints properly.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As I have said, we are planning ongoing discussions with the Certification Officer, and it will be sensible to revisit that point. But this is the way that we see it in the light of practice in other regulatory areas. I add, if I have not said it already, that enforcement decisions will remain subject to appeal. I suppose that that was the point the noble Lord was making—we have to be careful with systems of appeal.
The Certification Officer reports on the complaints he or she considers in an annual report, which is submitted to Parliament. His or her activity and decisions can therefore be the subject of public scrutiny.
The setting up of a separate body to oversee the Certification Officer’s work would, I believe, create additional costs and increase legislative complexity. It could slow down action, allow genuine complaints to go on for longer without being addressed, which is the last thing we want, and go too far in the regulatory direction—noble Lords will be glad to hear me say that.
We will be discussing the levy on a later amendment, but—to respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy—there is no intention to penalise anyone. The system simply has to recover the costs of its constituent expenses. The Bill provides scope for regulations to provide for different amounts to be charged. This will be deployed if the proportion of functions provided by the Certification Officer to certain organisations is different. That is proportionate and fair, and in line with Treasury guidance. Whether the regulations will specify that different amounts are to be charged in these circumstances will be subject to the outcome of consultation, which seems the right approach. I believe that setting up an entirely separate body to oversee the Certification Officer’s work would be unnecessary.
I have managed to get through my speech without another Fisherman’s Friend, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, let me deal first with the two chinks of light. The first was that the Minister said that the Government will look at the arrangements where the Certification Officer absorbs all the investigatory and adjudication roles. Secondly, her case against having someone to look independently at adjudications as a means of oversight—the case against the enforcement of human rights—was that it was too regulatory. That breaches the principle that she is espousing in the first place. I do not think that the case has been made for regulation, and I do not really understand the architecture for the regulator. I do not understand the model or where we are going on this. I do not think the Minister has made a case for where there are comparable institutions or why, just because this impacts on the public realm, this is a proportionate role and one with any appropriate objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Flight, tried to make a case for regulation—bizarre as I felt it was. We believe in better regulation—sometimes less, sometimes more— but there has to be a case for it, and there is not for this measure. The point about why this is different from general consumer or other rights matters was extremely well made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, who has made it before. We are dealing with fundamental rights, which are vastly different to the other sorts of rights that the noble Lord was addressing. I do not think that the Government have taken that point on board at all.
I am very concerned about this extension, because it cuts to the heart of our debate. It is not really about members who are not getting the right service and ensuring that unions are operating properly within the rules. We just have to read the impact assessment, which, it is now apparent, was written long after the Bill was published, without consulting any expert and with no real evidence. It identifies, as does the Bill, the particular areas that it covers as: political fund rules, political fund ballots and expenditure on political objectives. Then there are the areas that the Minister was prepared to address: union mergers, internal elections and other such things. It is absolutely clear that this is targeted at political matters.
The Minister has not addressed the warnings that came from the Certification Officer. In his same evidence to the Select Committee—we could almost recite his entire evidence and ask the Minister to respond to it—he talked about the growing uncertainty caused by the legislation:
“In my experience, uncertainty gives way to litigation, and there are a number of issues that could give rise to uncertainty. It is not only members who can complain to me about these things; anyone can raise them with me. Given the political nature of the subject matter, which is likely to be highly contentious, and the fact that what is reported to me is likely to be forensically examined, I can see many more issues being brought to me about what is reported”.
The nature of trying to open up all political matters provides a completely different sense of what the Government want the Certification Officer to do. It is about the regulation of people’s free right and ability to join together and have political views, and they want third parties to be able to intervene on them. That is wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, made exactly the right point about the cases raised in the Certification Officer’s report. There were 19 complaints, and four declarations were made that a union had breached or threatened to breach its rules. What were those issues? The cases of note that the Certification Officer addresses are: case 1, union disciplinary procedures; case 2, internal disciplinary procedures; case 3, the elections for general secretary and issues relating to members in long-term arrears; case 4, internal disciplinary procedures; case 5, internal disciplinary procedures; and case 6, a removal from office of an official. All of a sudden, every third party is now going to have a chance to raise issues on every political matter. That is just not credible.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I have dealt with the issue of vexatious claims. Whenever you try to modernise a regulator—and this is a regulator, albeit not the Financial Conduct Authority—the people who are regulated obviously have concerns. We are debating those concerns, but that does not mean to say that the extra regulation we are bringing in, which does not seem nearly as wide-ranging as everybody is suggesting, is unnecessary. Noble Lords should remember that the accuracy of trade union membership registers affects the results of ballots and other very important things. These matter to the economy.
Lord Mendelsohn
I accept the last point, but the report itself demonstrates that there are no problems with that. What is the case for any additional intervention? Can the Minister present me with evidence of any particular case or circumstance—anything, a report or a press cutting? I shall go on for a bit longer to give her the chance to respond on that point.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
May I assist the noble Lord by pointing out that one area in which we will have more disputes is ballots, because of the Government’s determination to get rid of check-off?
Lord Mendelsohn
That is another extremely good point from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The truth is that at the moment the only people who can complain are the members. We are not hiding the fact that there is a change here, so you might have extra complaints, but I think that that is right if we are going to get this regulatory area correct, because of the wider point I was making. I have to say, I do not think we are going to agree on this issue. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord’s final comments, as we have a number of other amendments to move on to.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister for asking me to hurry up, but I am going to take my time in addressing this, because this is our main opportunity to deal with the major points of principle—although, as I said, we will get on to some more technical matters. She has not made a case or provided evidence, and it is worth continuing to probe these issues. The evidence is there in the Certification Officer’s comments that at this stage, in their obligations to collate that material and in the penalties and breaches available, unions are not transgressing and there is no such case. That is a very important principle. She raised a series of issues, and I am very happy to receive a letter establishing that they warrant the grounds on which the regulation of penalties on such measures can be extended, and include political matters. The key point is that it is not just about the regulation of those matters; she is trying to regulate the ability to have a political view together, and to associate. That is the fundamental difference. It is not about regulating other things or about the ability of a board of directors to have a particular view; it is just about trade unions. That is fundamental and really important.
Turning finally to the important issue of costs, the Minister is not on the same page as the Certification Officer, but I will be happy to receive a letter about that, as I am sure other noble Lords will be. The impact assessment refers to the great benefits—including the fine revenue and the levy revenue, although it does not give a figure for the investigation cost levied on trade unions—and identifies extra costs that are much lower than those identified by the Certification Officer: much lower even than if you established the nature of the cases and the type of evidence she is now expecting unions to pay to assemble, to their detriment. It is very important that she understands that my fundamental problem with how the cost-benefit analysis is presented is that at the very end it says, under benefits, that members of the public will benefit from a strongly regulated regime. Members of the unions will not—they will be burdened by the shackles of cost and by a greater interference from vexatious claims, and probably ministerial interference or direction from the Certification Officer. It is not clear that there is a public benefit at all. We will certainly come back to this issue on Report, and I ask her to think again very carefully about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Donaghy
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I have one point about the impact assessment that relates to the previous issue, but I think it better if I write to the Minister rather than take up a lot of time. I am quite concerned that a market failure argument is used. I understand about union behaviour and imperfect information between employees and trade unions, but I do not understand the point about imperfect information between employers and trade unions. That is not the role of the Certification Officer. If it is intended that it will be in future, it puts the whole industrial relations scene on a very different level, but I will drop the Minister a line about my concern.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I look forward to receiving the noble Baroness’s letter.
Baroness Donaghy
I shall speak also to Amendments 102, 103 and 105. Amendment 101 goes over some of the ground that we have already covered. It would restrict the power to require the production of documents to the Certification Officer and his or her staff. Amendment 102 would require a complaint to be made by a union member and for the Certification Officer reasonably to believe there was evidence of a breach of an obligation before he or she initiated an investigation. Amendment 103 would require a person investigating a breach of an obligation by a union to be a member of the staff of the Certification Officer and not “other persons” as vaguely written in the Bill. Amendment 105 would require the interim report of the person investigating a breach of an obligation by a union to be sent to the union concerned, which is a new point and, if anything, represents the one improvement in the whole area of the schedule.
The concern is that the Certification Officer and inspectors will have wide-ranging powers to demand the production of union documents and access to membership records, members’ names and addresses and correspondence between a member and their union, even though no union member has raised a complaint about the union’s practices. I am also seriously concerned that the evidence threshold that needs to be met before these wide-ranging powers are triggered is very low. The CO will be able to demand access to documents if he or she thinks there is good reason to do so. The CO would not need to have substantial evidence demonstrating that the union has breached any statutory obligations. Requests for union documentation would not be limited to union head offices, and the CO and any appointed inspectors would also be able to approach branch offices and regional offices to request documents.
These powers represent a serious violation of union members’ rights to privacy, as protected by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as has already been said. Many individuals do not want their employer or, indeed, the state to know that they are a member of a union for fear of victimisation or blacklisting which, as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said, unfortunately still exists today. The Bill may therefore deter individuals joining unions and benefiting from effective representation at work. This will undermine the right to freedom of association. I know that the Minister has said that this information will be confidential to the Certification Officer, but that is not necessarily the perception that will be held by individual union members, who will fear that the information may get out to the public, particularly if they find out that the complaint or investigation has been initiated by a national newspaper or a political party. Perceptions are extremely important on that. It is not surprising that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, has already referred to, the ILO committee of experts has called on the Government to account for their proposal to increase the powers of the Certification Officer.
I hope the Minister will understand that it is quite important from the point of view of the standing of the Certification Officer that any complaints are confined to union members. I do not think there is a case for any external inquiries. If anyone in the public thinks that there is some illegality going on in the unions, there are different ways of investigating that which have nothing to do with employment relations. I beg to move.
Lord Oates
My Lords, I shall speak particularly to Amendment 104 in the names of my noble friends Lord Stoneham of Droxford and Lady Burt of Solihull. We have discussed the serious concerns about the nature of the changed powers of the regulator. A particular concern has been expressed about the power to appoint a person or persons who are not members of the Certification Officer’s staff, and about the severe financial burdens that could be placed on trade unions as a result if organisations such as big accountants’ firms, lawyers or others were to be used.
The amendment tabled by my noble friends simply sets out a sensible way—which the Government could accept if they insist on going forward with this clause and these schedules—of ensuring that proper consideration is given to the proportionality of making the appointment, the cost of appointing the person or persons, and their impartiality. This would be very important in reassuring trade unionists. I hope the Minister will feel able to consider the amendment very seriously and adopt it.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Donaghy and congratulate her on some excellent amendments, which naturally I strongly support. I also support the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt.
This group of amendments focuses on the practicalities of the proposed changes to the Certification Officer and their staff. They would further secure the impartiality of the Certification Officer in maintaining an approach by staff to investigations that is free from bias and undue influence. In order to give trade union members assurances over the security of any personal information supplied, it is vital that the power to require the production of documents remains solely that of the Certification Officer and his or her staff. That is what Amendment 101 seeks to achieve. Contracting out investigatory powers and the handling of sensitive information may not only jeopardise the independent standing of the Certification Officer but leave trade unions vulnerable to the misuse of their data.
That potential problem relates directly to the issues raised in the following amendments. There must be a requirement for a person investigating a breach of an obligation by a union to be a member of the staff of the Certification Officer, not simply “other persons” as the Bill currently states. Amendments 103 and 104 would add yet further safety measures for occasions when the Certification Officer appointed as an inspector someone who was not a member of his or her staff. The Certification Officer must have proper regard to the proportionality of making such an appointment, the cost of the appointment and, importantly, the impartiality of the person, which is naturally a matter of deep concern given the political nature of all the issues involved in the appointment.
There is nothing in the Bill to stop the Certification Officer hiring what is vaguely described as “other persons” to take part in an investigation. That leaves us without any safeguards against the hiring of a person who may have a particular political leaning or history of working against trade unions. Without appointees being directly employed by and accountable to the Certification Officer, how can the Government ensure that the investigations will be consistently impartial? This point is critical to the accountability and independence of the Certification Officer.
Reflecting the threat of malicious complaints, as mentioned in discussion on the previous group, standards must also be set to gauge the validity of any complaints. Not only should complaints be made by a union member but the Certification Officer must have reason to believe that there is adequate evidence of a breach of an obligation before they initiate an investigation. Again, this would protect everyone involved from wasting time on deliberately unfounded complaints.
In an effort genuinely to increase openness and transparency, the Certification Officer or the person investigating any breach of an obligation by a union should be required to produce an interim report, which would be sent to the union concerned. This allows for a truly open process and for communication from the Certification Officer to the union concerned, which ultimately would pave the way for a quicker and smoother resolution.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for these amendments. In considering them it is important to reflect first on the approach and safeguards that already operate with regard to the Certification Officer’s current power to investigate a union’s financial affairs and how they will continue to operate after these reforms are adopted. In response to the final point that was made, I agree that impartiality is critical. As with all regulators, that is an absolutely essential point and it is possible to get into a terrible mess, so I assure the House that the Certification Officer’s impartiality will continue.
As I have already said, the Certification Officer will continue to be under no obligation to undertake an investigation. They will remain independent, subject to delivering against the statutory objectives. His or her judgments will remain subject to appeal, where he can be challenged through an independent process for the conclusions he or she reaches. In exercising the current powers to appoint an inspector, the Certification Officer needs to be satisfied that there were circumstances suggesting a breach. That will continue after the reforms.
When we reflect on how the current system works we see that the Certification Officer has acted proportionately and only when satisfied that the relevant tests have been met. There is no reason to believe that they or their successors would act any differently in future, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that a more onerous test for these powers is necessary.
It is also important to reflect on the nature of the investigatory powers which, as I have said, are very similar to the Certification Officer’s long-standing powers to investigate financial affairs. That includes the power to appoint an inspector who is not a member of the officer’s staff. That approach has been in place for a long time, so we are continuing with that long-standing approach.
Before I comment on one or two of the other amendments I will just respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, on the potential breach of Article 8. The investigatory powers will give the Certification Officer access to members’ information. Access to such information may be needed to determine whether there has been a breach of relevant obligations—I am sure the noble Baroness would agree with that. I made two key points in response to the question on data and data confidentiality, which she picked up in her comments about the need for confidentiality and to obey the Data Protection Act—although I note her comment about how people might feel, which is always a fair point. However, the key issue is that the Certification Officer will be under a statutory duty to act consistently with rights conferred by the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 8, so we have to set it up in a way that does that.
Amendments 101 and 103 aim to restrict inspection activities and Amendments 102 and 104 place controls on the appointment of inspectors, which the noble Lord, Lord Oates, was concerned about. We envisage that most inspections will be carried out by the Certification Officer or their staff. However, the reforms allow the Certification Officer to bring in additional resources, as the noble Lord said, or, perhaps more importantly, specialist knowledge should an investigation prove very technical or complex. This approach is not new. This flexibility has been used rarely, specifically to supplement auditing skills in relation to investigations into a union’s financial affairs, and it seems appropriate to bring in such skills. It will give the Certification Officer flexibility in choosing an appropriate inspector to deal with investigations swiftly and effectively. This is common among other regulators, including smaller ones. For example, the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies and the Charity Commission can appoint outside people to conduct or help with an inquiry if that makes sense.
Finally, Amendment 105 allows unions the opportunity to see an inspector’s interim or other reports before a final report is compiled. I am not sure that there has been much debate about this. I believe that this would be unhelpful for unions. Any investigation is likely to give a union several chances to state its case to the inspector before a report is finalised. Furthermore, requiring the inspector to provide interim or other copies of his or her report will serve only to slow down the inspection process.
I assure the Committee that the law will continue to require that a union must always have an opportunity to make representations to the Certification Officer before any enforcement decision is made following an investigation. That seems to me very important. As we have discussed, a union also has a right of appeal against any decision to issue an enforcement order.
I hope that some of that explanation is helpful and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Donaghy
I could make a number of points. I think the Minister has underestimated the issue of the perception of the individual member who finds himself or herself in the middle of all this. I think that just having an assurance that there will be confidentiality and that the objectivity of the Certification Officer will remain the same will be a bit more difficult to accept in the context that 99.5% of the cost of the levy will be met by the trade unions.
Incidentally, I may well have got that figure wrong. Apparently I was wrong in referring earlier to 26p. I should have referred to a cost of £26 per employer organisation, so I put that on the record and apologise. However, I am certain that 99.5% of the levy cost will go to the trade unions. That does not look like a fair allocation and, in the context of that unfairness, it will be difficult for people to think that they will be treated fairly.
In the light of the time of day and the fact that we have given this matter a good airing, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
I shall speak also to Amendment 107. Both amendments stand in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lady Burt and Lord Mendelsohn. I do not want to detain the Committee for long on these amendments because, in many respects, we have already dealt with the issues in principle. This is obviously a further initiative to try to restrict the amount of intervention—in this case, by the Certification Officer.
I just want to remind the Committee that the original trade union Certification Officer was appointed in 1975. From memory—I was brought up on the Donovan report, so I think I am right in this—the intention was to try to eliminate disputes, particularly about union membership, within and between unions. Therefore, it was thought that there was a need for better records and the recording of membership and finances to reduce the scope for disputes.
I re-emphasise that the Certification Officer is there primarily to protect the members of individual unions, particularly when they are in some form of dispute or disagreement with their own union. Their complaints are absolutely key. I accept that an investigation initiated by the Certification Officer, particularly if it is a public servant with the experience of the current Certification Officer, is the least-worst incursion that we are seeing in this Bill. Certainly, it is much better than the third-party initiative, which I think is a charter for cranks and would lead to all sorts of muddle and unnecessary bureaucracy. I have already said that there is no evidence that there is pressure or a burden of complaints that need to be answered, particularly from third parties, let alone from union members themselves.
Given that the Government have now started to consult the Certification Officer, can we ask him whether he wants these powers to investigate himself? Does he think these powers are needed? Those are two questions the Minister has to ask in relation to these amendments. It is clear from the oral evidence the Certification Officer gave to the Select Committee that he sees problems with the complications that have now been caused. There are those who say that this is common for regulators, but there are now four distinct areas of requirement for the Certification Officer. He is going to be an initiator of inquiries, if he wants to be, in the form of a policeman; he is going to be an investigator; he is going to be an adjudicator; he is going to be an enforcer. There are quite a lot of complications there, given that this is a semi-legal process. I wonder whether the Government have really consulted the Certification Officer on what he thinks those problems are.
Finally, let us remind ourselves that the great tradition set by the Donovan report—and we have accepted that, as experience has gone on, that was ameliorated by further Acts—was that, wherever possible, where there are disputes within unions, whether a member organisation or voluntary organisation, the emphasis should be on voluntarily resolving them. Trying to set up a semi-legal process that becomes increasingly complicated and does not emphasise the voluntary nature of what you are seeking to do will make it more difficult and more expensive to resolve. That is precisely why, amazingly, a Conservative Government are causing the expenditure on this regulator to go up from £500,000 to £2 million—what an indictment.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I will speak very briefly as we have spoken to the principle of the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, made a very powerful case and asked some very important questions. I just want to address a couple of points on which I would be grateful if the Minister could give us more detail. If she is not in a position to do so tonight, perhaps she will write to me.
My questions are on the financial components of this. In the Certification Officer’s evidence, he said:
“Our provisional thinking on all this is to recruit some new members of staff and then to play it by ear and recruit as we go along”.
The increase that he talked about is his,
“provisional view, but we are warning our funders, ACAS, that we may ask for more money”.
Within the context of the impact assessment, additional inspectors will cost between £250,000 and £500,000 and will look at an increased number of investigations. The impact assessment also talks about a likely 10 additional enforcement decisions being issued against trade unions every five years. There is very little behind the assumption of how you get to the first cost or the second cost and how the two relate to each other. What are the anticipated number of inquiries and how many of those will go to determination or other sorts of things if we open this up to third parties? I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide more detail on that. As I said, if she is not able to do that now, I am more than happy to receive a letter.
My final point is to clarify the position and probe whether there is a way of ameliorating this. There are of course fears and concerns that the Certification Officer could be pressured into carrying out investigations in response to a request from employers, campaign groups or a variety of people. Will the Minister confirm that the failure to act on submissions from third parties could expose the Certification Officer to risks of judicial review? Are there any safeguards in the Bill to prevent the Certification Officer being pressured by malicious motives?
I am a great believer that legislation rarely changes the heart and is there to restrain the heartless. In the circumstances that there are heartless people who have ill intent against the trade unions—and I believe there are—how can the Certification Officer be protected from these sorts of vexatious complaints, the racking-up of costs and the problems associated with allowing judicial review to be a mechanism available to third parties on spurious claims? I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some sense of how that could be dealt with.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I start by responding to the noble Lord’s questions. On cost, I thought that that aspect of the impact assessment was quite helpful and clear, but I will look through it myself in the light of the questions that the noble Lord has asked and drop him a line. I will copy it to others who are interested, in all the nooks and crannies of this House, which I think is what we agreed on our previous day in Committee.
I also think that I went into some detail on the last amendment about how I saw judicial review and how the Certification Officer would need to act when looking at external, third-party complaints. But again, I will look at what I said, see if there is anything useful that I can add and cover that in the same letter.
The amendments seek to retain the current position by preventing the Certification Officer from making inquiries or taking enforcement action unless a complaint is received from a member in relation to two specific obligations—the duty to secure positions not held by certain offenders and a failure to comply with political ballot rules. As I have explained, the current system is reliant purely on complaints from union members. This relies on union members being aware of all the obligations on their union and of any failures to comply with them. Enabling the Certification Officer to consider potential failures without having to wait for a complaint from a member will enable him or her to take action should information on serious matters come to light, regardless of the source. That is consistent with our reform towards a more responsive and diligent regulator.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, asked what the Certification Officer had said about these reforms. The Certification Officer set out how he might deal with the reforms and how they could be implemented when speaking to the committee.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Did he say that they were needed? That is the key issue that we need to know.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am not clear whether there is yet a Hansard record of what he said.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
I thought that the Minister said that, although the Government did not initially consult the Certification Officer, they had now done so. He has, it is perfectly true, appeared before the Select Committee and made certain views known, but I would have thought that it would be helpful for the Government to ask him his views, why he thinks reform is necessary and what powers he wants.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As far as I know, he has not given a view on that either in the committee or elsewhere. We consulted him on the implementation of proposals which obviously the Government have set out and believe to be necessary.
Like other noble Lords, I hope that the powers we are discussing under this amendment rarely need to be used because that would indicate compliance, which must be the goal of any good regulatory system. However, in the circumstances of failure coming to light, the Government strongly believe that the Certification Officer should be able to respond. It is important that we have a consistent and credible approach for all the reasons that we discussed earlier. I hope that these comments have been helpful and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
I thank the Minister for her reply. We have had a long debate on various aspects of the role of the Certification Officer. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I am sure that we will return to this on Report.
Baroness Donaghy
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, it is getting to the stage where I have forgotten what a lot of these amendments are about.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thought you were going to say that you have lost the will to live.
Baroness Donaghy
I have also lost the will to live. However, Amendment 109 intends to delete the following:
“Where an enforcement order has been made, a person who is a member of the union and was a member at the time it was made is entitled to enforce obedience to the order as if the order had been made on an application by that person”.
Amendments 110 to 117 are technical in nature and again are consistent with my theory that the role of the Certification Officer should remain simple and that the investigatory powers should be confined to that officer, not spread far and wide. The amendments are all entirely consistent with my view that the Government are going down the wrong track in trying to change this position, which the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham—I might call him my noble friend in view of our common trade union background—has commented on.
It is important to remember that the post originated as a protection for the union member against the union structure, if you like. I know that add-ons have been made over the years, but the role remains essentially the same. Because of its limitations and the way the Certification Officer has carried out his role, it has become a trusted position. The Government have accepted that they are trying to change the nature of the role, saying that it is about modernisation. I think that we shall just have to agree to disagree. We need to take into consideration that any attempt to change the nature of the role by reference to “imperfect relationships” between unions and employers seems to add a meaning that I had not been aware of, which is why I was so worried about the impact assessment. These are probing and technical amendments, but they are consistent with all that we have been saying. I beg to move.
Lord Mendelsohn
I want to raise a couple of quick questions which I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to. I am speaking in support of the amendments and to seek clarity on some of the questions which have been raised by my noble friend Lady Donaghy in her amendments. We have debated provisions that place in our view an unnecessary burden and level of regulation on trade unions. Clause 6 places an obligation on unions to report to the Certification Officer in their annual return the details of any industrial action taken, while Clause 11 places an even heftier duty on unions to include details of political expenditure exceeding £2,000 in their annual returns.
Clause 16 gives the Certification Officer quite a bite to ensure that unions abide by these obligations. The Certification Officer will now be able to declare an “enforcement order” against any union which does not follow these measures. Noble Lords will recall how earlier in Committee we debated the concerns expressed by smaller unions that would not have the resources to comply adequately with such regulation. Will the Minister consider any allowances or safeguards where small unions genuinely do not have the manpower to abide by these provisions?
This clause further enhances the role of the Certification Officer by giving the office the same consideration that a court would be given. New subsection (12) indicates that:
“An enforcement order made by the Certification Officer … may be enforced by the Officer in the same way as an order of the court”.
This seems a little extreme and I would be grateful for any examples the Minister could provide on similar bodies which have the powers of the court.
I should like to make a brief comment in relation to Amendment 109, which would remove new subsection (13). The central argument for doing so is because it just does not make sense. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain it to me.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for her commendable honesty. I will seek to provide some reassurance on this, which is essentially a technical discussion. I think that there is a reasonable explanation; let us see how it goes.
In the current legislation a union member—so it is a member—can apply to the court to ensure that a union complies with an order of the Certification Officer. That is a long-standing provision of the current legislation, which we heard about. However, to reflect the Certification Officer’s investigation powers we thought it would be helpful when drafting the legislation to remove any doubt that his own orders may also be enforced, as an order of the court, by the Certification Officer. In doing so, the drafting of the Bill reiterates the existing rights of the applicant member and other members mentioned in relevant sections of the current legislation. The words in Clause 17 that the noble Baroness seeks to amend simply refer to those existing provisions. I do not have any examples, but I will see whether we can find one. The main example is that that is existing practice, but I will look at other regulators and add it to my letter.
I am sure that noble Lords would agree that, if the Certification Officer had found that a union was not compliant with its obligations and it did not rectify the situation, it must be right that a union member should continue to be able to take action to protect their interests.
I hope that that provides some reassurance and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I need clarity on this. Currently, where the Certification Officer publishes a decision and an enforcement order, the member can go to a court; having been before the CO on many occasions I am aware of the process. Is the noble Baroness saying that the CO will now be able to see enforcement through the courts on his own?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, my understanding is that the orders of Certification Officers are already enforceable as an order of the court under the 1992 Act, so we are just continuing that position.
Lord Mendelsohn
To clarify, the Bill gives over the powers of the Certification Officer. His order can be enforced without going to court.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I do not think that that is right, but perhaps I can write and clarify in the follow-up if I do not receive advice quickly.
On small unions, details of the application of financial penalties, including the maximum level of penalties available to the Certification Officer, will be set out in regulations. Of course, they will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as we discussed. In setting maximum amounts in the regulations it will be possible to take into account the type of breach and the size of the union.
I will write to confirm that the answer to the noble Lord’s point is no and that it requires an application to the court.
Baroness Donaghy
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply—I think. The best thing for me to do at this stage is say that I will look at Hansard, because I am not entirely clear. The negatives have become so negative that I am not quite sure how many stages it has got through and what it actually means. At this stage, I will withdraw the amendment, but I may follow it up if I do not understand the reply.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As this is a technical point where there does not seem to be much difference between us, we can always have a discussion on what it means and involve the officials who drafted the provisions, who I think were trying to repeat an existing provision.
Lord Mendelsohn
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I think that we have gained a bit of momentum and I hope not to interrupt it.
We move on to a group of amendments which examines what happens to a union when it is unable to comply with the Certification Officer’s enforcement order. Clause 17 of the Bill provides the Certification Officer with a new power to impose substantial financial penalties on unions. Schedule 3 states that the maximum and minimum penalty amounts can be set in regulations but they cannot be less than £200 and cannot exceed £20,000.
The Secretary of State is given a power to issue regulations setting different amounts in relation to different enforcement orders and to reference penalties by whether the person in default is an individual or an organisation and by the number of members that a trade union has. We would be very grateful if the Minister could provide us with the Government’s thinking on those areas and how they are looking at setting those fines and how they are likely to operate. Given the momentum we have now achieved, it may be better if that information were provided in writing rather than from the Dispatch Box. However, if the Minister already has the relevant details, they would be gratefully received.
I return to an important issue. At present, the Certification Officer cannot impose financial penalties. I know that this is a repetitive line of questioning but I will ask the Minister again: what evidence has been provided as the basis for the Government to introduce these measures? From reading the Certification Officer’s evidence at the Select Committee and his annual reports, there was no sign of the need for a serious measure such as financial penalties for him to be able to exercise his powers effectively. The Government’s impact assessment predicts that if the Bill comes into effect, the Certification Officer will on average issue 50 declarations and enforcement notices during every five-year period. This is an increase of 10 declarations every five years. On each occasion, the Certification Officer is expected to impose a financial penalty, and a figure has been identified in relation to income from fines. As a result, it is anticipated that the Exchequer will benefit from fine revenue of £275,000 every five years. I would be very grateful to the Minister to be told how the Government have arrived at that figure. I am reminded that when you look at your credit card statement and it says that you have a credit card limit, it is a limit, not a target. An assumption that there is a £275,000 benefit to the Exchequer starts to create a target or underlines a series of assumptions which I think we should know more about.
There is no evidence of union non-compliance with the Certification Officer’s orders or any evidence of the Certification Officer raising concerns with government around the current enforcement regime. Therefore, the idea that there will be fines seems to underline a different series of assumptions or a different evidence base. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether that is the case as regards either of those scenarios. I beg to move.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
I will be brief because, frankly, discussing this issue will almost cost more—given all the noble Lords around the Chamber and all the people supporting us with the discussion going on until late at night—than this provision will raise in a year. The relevant figure is about £55,000. The impact assessment refers to five-year periods. I wonder why that is the case. The figures are so low. I could not find any evidence of enforcements in last year’s report, but, apparently, we have had eight enforcements per year on average. I am sure that the political advisers, the Minister, or whoever saw the impact assessment, thought that they had better talk in five-year periods because it makes the figure—40—sound bigger. If we put in these new powers, we will spend another £1.5 million and we will get two more enforcement orders a year. Goodness me, what is this? It is ridiculous. The Government are clearly contriving an issue out of nothing.
That goes back to my earlier point. The impact assessment says there is scope to increase the powers, but actually the Government have provided no evidence that it is necessary. The great sadness is that, as everyone knows, once you start having fines, interests become entrenched. Pride is at stake—nobody likes to be fined—so it becomes a legal process, it becomes drawn out and the poor old Certification Officer, who at the moment is doing a very good job trying to reach voluntary agreements, finds it more difficult because the parties become more intractable. And for what? For eight or 10 enforcement orders a year—goodness me!
Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)
I rise to intervene briefly, having listened carefully all afternoon to our exchanges. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for his remarks, and I fully support both this and the previous set of amendments. The more one thinks about this obnoxious, sad little Bill—well, it is a fairly big Bill, I suppose—the more one has deep misgivings about it.
I do not mean to embarrass the Minister, but I genuinely thank her for being a listening Minister on this occasion, and for listening very carefully. It is obvious that the Bill has been contrived, through the interstices of the central office apparatus of the party in power, to produce something that does not reflect the reality of modern trade union/employer relations. I cannot think of any examples, in respect of our exchanges on Clause 16 onwards, where employers have asked for anything in this field. That is fairly telling. Normally, Governments respond to legitimate lobbies, but that has not happened on this occasion.
I look back—it is a long way—to when I first entered the House of Commons in 1970 and the nightmare of the Heath Government, the National Industrial Relations Court, the Official Solicitor being called on to adjudicate, the dockers on strike, and all the rest of it. That all arose from anti-trade union legislation built on principles of prejudice, dislike and antagonism, rather than genuine constructive industrial relations—the kind of thing we see routinely in Germany and other civilised European countries where there is a much more balanced picture.
Given that the Minister has been a patient listener, and given that an expectation is building up that we will return on Report, which, if my memory serves me right, will be on 14 March, to lots of these fundamental points, I ask her, at this late stage in the Committee—we only have a short time to go before we conclude this four-day Committee stage—to indicate that she will come back with modern modifications to reduce the onerous and extreme extra bureaucracy being placed on the Certification Officer’s activities. They are not necessary and have not been requested by anybody, least of all the professionals in that department. I ask that she listen to these correct objections.
I am glad that the Liberal Democrats have been involved in objecting, and not just the Labour party, which is the main expert on industrial relations. It shows the authority of the genuine overall opposition—including on these Benches—to these really undesirable measures in a Bill that is widely unpopular among the people observing it. It is a pity that many are not bothering to observe it; they should be, because it is one of the worst examples of the Government’s illegitimate use of a so-called mandate based on 24% of the electorate. It is nowhere near a genuine majority of people in this country. People want proper, modern, civilised industrial relations that do not oppress trade union members.
I thank the Minister for her patience. She has the chance to indicate, either in her reply today or on another occasion, that, when the time comes, the Government will respond and make sure there is a definite change in the text of these clauses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank Lord Mendelsohn for the amendment. This short debate has raised an important question about the proportionality of penalties for breaches in this area, and I want to emphasise the seriousness with which we should all view the requirements and obligations on unions. The impact assessment helps us to have a useful discussion in this House. It reflects conventions—I do not always agree with the conventions, as I am sure noble Lords opposite will remember, but penalty estimates are one bit of good practice that is rightly included when these assessments are prepared. I emphasise that it is not a target. It is about encouraging good compliance, including as a deterrent, and creating and maintaining public confidence by removing those unfit for union office and ensuring accurate trade union registers. Union leadership elections or political fund rules and ballots should all be carried out according to due process. Any irregularities, quite rightly, would raise concerns and damage confidence among not only union members but employers and the wider public.
We intend that the maximum penalty would vary according to the seriousness of the breach. This is a normal approach among regulators. Within this maximum, the Certification Officer may also set a lower penalty, depending on the circumstances of the case. In a number of areas that the Certification Officer regulates, he is currently limited to being able to make an order requiring the union to correct a breach. There is nothing to sanction a union that has failed to comply with a requirement, no matter how significant the failure. The additional option of a financial penalty being applied will ensure that appropriate sanctions are available as a remedy and a deterrent, as I have said.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Is the Minister going to give an example of where due process has not been followed which justifies extending enforcement powers?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The honest answer is: not this evening. Obviously, we are making the regulator more responsive. We are making some changes, and one of the things you look at when you review regulators is what the appropriate penalty regime is, and that is what I am proposing.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
But normally when you reform a process, it is because something is not being enforced properly. I ask again: is there an example of where due process has not been followed?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I do not know the answer this evening. I am not sure I am going to give way on this point. We are setting up a modern regulator and a modern regulator needs appropriate penalties. We can argue about the exact detail of the penalties and I am going to come on to say something of a listening kind.
The range of the penalties that we propose mirrors that available to bodies that I see some parallel with, such as the Electoral Commission, which has a maximum of £20,000 in relation to the civil penalties that it can impose; I think it does criminal penalties as well. The national minimum wage regime also provides for penalties of up to £20,000 per worker. Our general approach is that a strong civil sanctions regime is an effective way of ensuring rapid compliance. That is why we do not think that the amendment, which seeks to reduce the fine to £5,000, would be sufficient.
We want to get this right. As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, we are trying to listen during Committee. Obviously, we will consider and reflect on the debate in the House before bringing forward further details, particularly of the application of these penalties and how they would work. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister for that reply. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, has really put his finger on it. The issue here, which we think is of considerable concern, is that there is no evidence that actions are not complied with or such orders are not dealt with adequately. It is certainly true to say that the Government are extending this significantly and placing potentially terrible burdens on smaller organisations, which may have tremendous problems with them.
As we move to Report, the Government have to make a better case than they have made thus far. They say that it is important to restore public confidence. I think this is setting people up for a fall and that is not how you instil public confidence. To me, it is more like the action of a bully and I regret it. I hope the Government come back with a much better justification.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I have already said in a previous discussion that we very much understand the point about small unions. I reiterate that. In the interests of brevity, I have not repeated it under this heading. We are looking to get the detail of this right and look forward to further discussions on the subject.
Baroness Donaghy
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I think that I know where I am now. We are on to the proposal for a levy. Points have already been made about this proposed levy, which effectively means that trade unions and not the public purse will be paying for the Certification Office. Like others, I oppose that on principle, which is why I support the proposal that Clause 18 should not stand part of the Bill. I will not go into a great deal of detail about that. The points have already been made during general debate about why this levy is a new and very unwelcome development. Even now, I hope that the Government will reconsider.
The TUC is concerned that the Bill does not place a cap on the levy which can be charged to unions, other than providing that the total amount levied must not exceed the expenses incurred by the CO over a three-year period. Under the Bill’s current provisions, the Certification Office could expand well in excess of the Government’s current staffing estimates, with unions expected to cover the entire cost of the increased enforcement regime.
The TUC is also concerned that the Bill does not require either the Government or the CO to consult with stakeholders before determining the level of the levy. It believes that this is unreasonable, so I hope for an assurance from the Minister that there will be such consultation and that it will not take place, as I said, in the August-fest.
To speak specifically about Amendments 118 to 121, this is the old argument about “may” and “must”. If the Government have something in mind, it is really their responsibility to give some indication about their thinking rather than leaving the Certification Office to hang in the wind on this. The amendments would make it mandatory—not just a “may”—for future regulations introducing a levy to cover the costs of the Certification Office to specify what would be considered as recoverable expenses, including costs incurred by ACAS in providing staffing, accommodation and equipment, and to specify how the levy will be calculated for different organisations, taking into account the number of members and whether an organisation is a trade union, an employers’ association or a federated employers’ organisation, and the functions carried out by the CO in relation to different organisations.
I am looking, first, for some chink of light about the Government having second thoughts on the levy at all. Secondly, if there is to be consultation it should take place at a reasonable time and for a reasonable length of time. Thirdly, we need to be clearer about the Government’s thinking on this levy. It seems that it could be a bit like student loans: the minute you have it introduced, it could go really sky-high. As I said at Second Reading, it could look like the thin end of a very large wedge as the Certification Office is part of the ACAS family, which could include other functions of ACAS. I would be particularly concerned about that.
In the light of the time, I will confine myself to those remarks and hope that the Minister will give us some more positive response.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will make a couple of points about new Section 257A(4) in Clause 18, which covers the amount of the levy. They could have been made at various points, but they are probably as well made here as anywhere else. Before I start, can the Minister confirm that the various letters and information mentioned today will be sent to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Lord will be aware that I have already said, in promising letters, that I will ensure that they go to the nooks and crannies of the Chamber, which I think would include those involved in the debate today. We will of course take a careful look at the list.
Lord Balfe
I will not admit to whether I am a nook or a cranny, but I thank the noble Baroness for that.
The impact assessment says that the Secretary of State is,
“to be given a power to make affirmative regulations … The regulations will include a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult trade unions and employer associations on how the fees should be calculated”.
Could the Minister give us any indication about what level of consultation of trade unions will take place?
The impact assessment then says in paragraph 287:
“They will also limit the fees to cost recovery, and provide that the membership size of trade unions … may be taken into account when the fees are calculated”.
This is obviously quite important, and I will come back to it in a minute. It then goes on to say, in paragraph 294:
“The change to the operations of the Certification Officer will not change the costs faced by compliant unions”.
I am not sure I understand that, because if the costs are going to go up, that must surely change the fees, because they will have to go up to meet them. In paragraph 295, the assessment repeats what it says in paragraph 287:
“The mechanism in which the levy will be calculated will be consulted on with trade unions and employer associations”.
Can the Minister give us some idea of how that will take place?
A little further on, paragraph 297 says that,
“secondary legislation will set out how the levy will operate in more detail … a further impact assessment will be needed for the secondary legislation”.
Could the Minister give us some idea as to where we are with that impact assessment? Is it in process and will it be produced after the legislation is adopted? What will happen?
Finally, paragraph 299 says:
“The design of the levy will consider the inclusion of specified criteria such as the number of members or amount of income an organisation has”.
I have raised this privately with the Minister, but make no secret of the fact that a number of these smaller unions are concerned at the impact this levy will have on them. Particular concern has been raised with me by a number of the smaller unions about the difference in costs that could be incurred because a large union with a political fund—for example, Unite—could end up costing the regulator a lot more to regulate than a smaller union without a political fund, such as the British Dental Association.
I am sure that the Minister cannot say anything tonight, but I would like her to agree, in working out how the levy is to be apportioned, to look, first, at giving due regard to these smaller unions—hopefully some sort of graded system will be introduced. Secondly, will consideration at least be given in the consultation to the fact that unions that have chosen to have a political fund, which is of course regulated separately, should pay an extra part of the levy so that, in other words, the levy for the supervision of the political fund will not be placed on unions that do not have a political fund?
I know that these are rather small and technical points, but they are quite vital to small trade unions. If you are looking at a fourfold increase in costs, and these costs being placed on the unions for the first time, coming on top of other costs that they have recently had placed on them, this is a serious financial burden for the smaller unions in the TUC. Many of those smaller unions, which represent important professional subgroups within the population, play an extremely important part. Some people will say that they can always be taken over by big unions but that, to my mind, is not the solution. The smaller unions of this country play an extraordinarily important part in safeguarding the pay and conditions and bringing the detailed knowledge to bear for important groups of largely, I confess, highly professional workers. They do a valuable job, and in constituting this levy and working out where it falls, I hope that the Minister can assure us that due regard will be given to the points I have raised.
Lord Oates
I shall speak in particular to Clause 18 stand part in this group of amendments. We have considerable concerns about the shift of responsibility for the costs of the Certification Officer from the Exchequer to the trade unions. The Certification Officer estimated the cost of the levy to be £2 million to the department. But as he said in his evidence to the Select Committee, this is very much a provisional view. He said that,
“we are warning our funders, ACAS, that we may ask for more money … Apparently, you should do only a certain amount of forward planning while the legislation is at Bill stage, as you cannot move forward too quickly with public expenditure at that point”.
I do not know whether that reflects what he was told by the department. Of course there is a cost to the unions, not just of the Certification Officer but also of the additional resources that they will have to put in to answering complaints when third-party complaints are added.
The Minister has made references to and comparisons with other regulators whose members have to pay the fees. Perhaps she could answer a few questions. First is the question I raised earlier to which I do not think I have yet had a response. Why is it right for trade unions to pay a levy to be regulated but not political parties? I am not suggesting that political parties should pay for being regulated by the Electoral Commission, but they do not. It is not right to make comparisons with the Charity Commission or, indeed, any other area because the trade unions are involved in a political arena. It will be more so if third-party complaints are allowed, as a series of partisan and politically motivated complaints will be made.
If the Government insist on pushing this levy on to trade unions, will the Minister look again at the issues relating to third-party complaints? Will she, for example, look at excluding the costs of investigating those complaints from the levy that the trade unions have to pay? Will she look at restricting the scope of third-party complaints? For example, will the Government consider excluding complainants who are members of political parties unless they are also members of the relevant union? That would help exclude some of the partisan complaints that will inevitably be generated.
Will the Government also exclude organisations which refuse to publish their funding sources? I am thinking of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which we know is very keen on this Bill—one of the few organisations that is. As I understand it, it will be eligible to make complaints against unions relating to details of union finances while refusing to divulge where its funding comes from—as it does at present. That cannot be right. Will the Minister look into that?
Finally, I comment on the irony, given that the partisan nature of the Bill was designed in the Exchequer—in the Chancellor’s office—that it is the trade unions who are having the cost shoved from the Exchequer on to them. That is simply not right.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, Clause 18 gives the Secretary of State power to make affirmative regulations to provide for trade unions and employers’ associations to pay a levy to the Certification Officer. The amendments in this group attempt to remove any ambiguity over how a levy would be imposed on the trade unions and limit vast increases in the cost of the Certification Officer. These are probing amendments to try to establish where we are. I must say that the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, was significant, and I share his sentiments.
The impact assessment on the levy states that membership size and income will be taken into account, without giving any detail of how it will be calculated and how the costs will be shared between unions. As matters stand, there is no indication as to how the levy might be applied in practice: whether larger unions would have to pay more than small unions, how it would work, what the impact would be on union finances or how the future of the Certification Officer’s resources is established. All those areas are far too ambiguous.
The Bill also fails to require either the Government or the Certification Officer to consult stakeholders before determining the level of the levy. By contrast, in an area of which I am aware, the Financial Conduct Authority’s board is under a statutory duty to consult key stakeholders on fees policy and rates. Indeed, it carries out two consultations: one on policy changes and one relating to fee rates. The amendments simply ask the Certification Officer to carry out the same level of consultation with trade unions and employers’ associations before determining any levy.
I raise this matter because there has to be some operating mechanism and some sense of how it will operate. There must be a view on what should be the limits in any year of the Certification Officer’s growth and how they will be applied. If circumstances require additional staff, does that have to conform to pre-agreed boundaries? How are we to ensure that this onerous system remains logical and can be applied in any manner that can be described as fair? The Bill must give adequate protection to trade unions that the costs will not continue to spiral in the same way as they tend to in a variety of other places.
The amendments are necessary to inform trade unions how any level will be calculated and at what cost. Without a guarantee that stakeholders will be consulted on the setting of the levy or limit to future costs, the trade unions will be very much in the dark over how much the Certification Officer will cost initially and in future. What is being presented to the trade unions is an endless bill and the potential for the Certification Officer to run up an expensive tab. This is not a deal which you or I would enter into willingly, and is one which all trade unions and employers’ associations should be protected against, not least because it is their members who bear the brunt of it.
I am trying to clarify the position. The Minister is held in very high regard in the House, and rightly so. Frequently in this House, we have exchanges where we can disagree on a variety of matters either on the application—how something will work—or the foundation or principles behind it. I am not of a trade union background. I am a businessman, I have never been a member of a trade union, but I sit on the Opposition Benches, so it is entirely logical that someone might say: “You are likely to say that, are you not?”. During Second Reading and in Committee on the Bill, we have heard contributions which I hope have given the Government a sense that it is time to pause and reflect very carefully on what has been said.
The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, made a very interesting intervention. There is a certain mood attached to this Bill. The Bill is not worthy of where we are, and I am more than aware that the Minister on previous occasions has been very flexible and thoughtful in considering contributions from this House. I am also aware that there are difficulties in trying to convince those in another place that there is any reason, rationale or desire to make any changes, and that just as a bit of political yah boo sucks they continue in that fashion. I dearly hope that the Minister can use her good offices to convince others. Frankly, over the entirety of this period we have seen the flaws in this Bill and we know that it does nothing for trade unions, employers, our economy or our public services. It also does very little for our politics, and I hope that there is a chance that at the end of this Committee stage the Minister will give us some comfort that we might see some changes on Report, and that it will not be a continuation of an appalling form of politics that we should eschew.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have been engaged in this very long debate today. On the final point that the noble Lord made, clearly, this Bill brings together a number of provisions that were promised in our manifesto, on which we were elected last year. There are important changes here but, as I said at Second Reading, and as I have reiterated over these four days in Committee, we are listening. We may be able to make some changes—this is very much a listening part of the process.
This clause provides a regulation-making power to enable the Certification Officer to charge a levy to recover the cost of his or her expenses. It is only fair that the cost of the regulatory functions provided by the Certification Officer fall on those who are regulated rather than on the taxpayer. We are, of course, applying this reform to employers’ associations as well as trade unions.
Lord Oates
Could the Minister explain why it is right in the case of the trade unions and not in the case of the Electoral Commission and political parties?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, government is not always logical, and while some regulators receive public funding many do not. In fact, increasingly few regulatory areas are paid for by government. We do not think it appropriate for the costs to fall on the taxpayer. We are going to set out our proposals. The clause requires consultation with relevant organisations, such as the TUC and ACAS, before making regulations. We will ensure that there is consultation, so we can achieve a levy that is proportionate and appropriate. I would envisage a consultation document, which can go to those concerned; that is always the sort of approach I favour in the areas where I have responsibility. An impact assessment will be published, as has been said, and the normal process is to publish that with the draft regulations, which of course will come before this House in due course, setting out the arrangements for the levy. We should also ensure that ACAS and the trade unions have a reasonable period of time in which to consider the detailed proposals, particularly in the light of the discussion taking place today.
This legislation is about trade union reform, and I do not think that the point about political parties, which I know is made with great vehemence by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is a matter for this legislation.
It is important—and perhaps I can explain technically—that the Bill does not prescribe the amount. The Certification Officer needs to decide each year how much he or she needs to be charging to cover the cost of performing the functions for that year, adhering to the framework that is prescribed in regulations made under the Bill. It is common for legislation that introduces a levy or fees to require that the detail be set either in regulations or by the relevant regulator. This is standard practice and recognises that it is simply not possible to be too prescriptive in the primary legislation.
It is right that we do not attempt to limit the flexibility the Bill currently provides to apply one or more of these parameters until there has been proper statutory consultation. Let me give an example. We recognise that trade unions can vary greatly in size. Smaller unions and employer associations may require less of the Certification Officer’s time and resources, as my noble friend Lord Balfe said. We want the scope to be able to consider whether those who use more of the officer’s time should bear more of the cost, thereby reducing the amount of levy payable by smaller organisations. My noble friend Lord Balfe asked me to look at a point about political funds, and we can certainly consider that as part of the consultation. We will consider very carefully during the statutory consultation whether the amount of levy payable should be proportionate to the trade union or employer association’s income. It should take into account affordability for the smallest unions.
Amendments 118 to 121 seek to change that magic word, which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, knows so well, “may” to “must”, so that all the potential criteria in the Bill would have to be applied in setting the framework for the levy—I am afraid my sore throat is getting going again. That limits the flexibility to ensure that the power operates effectively, which is particularly important as we have a statutory duty first to consult.
On Amendment 121A, I appreciate noble Lords’ desire for there to be some control over the amount, but there are safeguards that act to control the amount of investigation that the Certification Officer could undertake. Most importantly, he will be able to investigate only where there is good reason to do so. Third parties have no statutory right to complain. The changes allow the Certification Officer to investigate in respect of information he receives that may be from a third party.
The officer has had the power to launch investigations into a union’s financial affairs for many years, and it has not been suggested that it has been used disproportionately. He or she will also be required to report annually on the amount levied and how it was determined. These reports are laid before both Houses. By way of further safeguards: the amount of the levy will be limited to cost recovery; unions and employer associations will be consulted before the framework for the levy is determined; and regulations to enable the Certification Officer to charge the levy will be subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing a full debate in Parliament, which I much look forward to. In these circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Donaghy
I am glad the Minister’s voice just about held out. I appreciate the points that she made. I will say only that this is creating a power to create a levy, with which I do not agree. It is increasing the costs of the whole exercise and then cynically passing them on to the trade unions. I say “the trade unions” advisedly because, although the Minister said that this will affect employers as well, I do not think I got my figures wrong when I said that they will be paying 0.5% and the unions will pay 99.5%—I am grateful to the Minister for nodding on that.
I do not see that my may/must amendments limit flexibility. I see the transparency which has been promoted by the Front Bench of the Government through all four days in Committee. It is important that people know where they stand. They will not know where they stand because the flesh will appear in the statutory instrument. Yet again we have important policy items waiting for a statutory instrument. It is not good enough just to say that there will be an impact assessment to accompany that statutory instrument; we all know that there are attempts to downgrade our powers to properly debate statutory instruments. Time will pass and everyone will look totally amazed when this side leaps up and down with indignation about the content of that statutory instrument. I give notice now that I probably will be leaping up and down.
I just hope, again, that the consultation will be adequate and that all relevant parties will be consulted, but I strongly believe that it is a very poor change for the role of the Certification Officer to become a tax collector as well as adjudicator, investigator and all the other things that he, or in future she, may have to do. It is a backward step and I very much regret it. In the circumstances, though, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.