House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
1. What fiscal steps he is taking to support the oil and gas industry.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
This Government are clear that the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom are 100% behind our oil and gas industry and the thousands of families it supports. Last March, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a wide-ranging fiscal package, including reducing the headline rates of tax and a new investment allowance, further expanded at the summer Budget to drive investment and support maximising economic recovery.
Stuart Blair Donaldson
Oil and Gas UK has highlighted that headline tax rates of 50%, or 67.5% for companies paying petroleum revenue tax, are no longer sustainable. As the UK continental shelf enters an new, ever more mature phase, and the oil price remains lower for longer, the fiscal burden needs to reflect these changing circumstances and to be permanently reduced. Will the Government listen to the industry, and what fiscal support will they bring forward for the oil and gas industry in this year’s Budget?
Damian Hinds
In the “Driving investment” paper, the Government absolutely recognise the need over time to change the fiscal structure. The scale of what my right hon. Friend did reflects the fact that the figure stood at £1.3 billion. The most recent of the headline tax reductions took effect on 1 January this year.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I echo these points. The North sea oil and gas industry is facing very serious challenges at this time. Working with the industry and the Oil and Gas Authority, the Treasury can help to overcome the problems. May I urge the Minister to include in the Budget tax-cutting initiatives and support that build on last year’s measures and help to attract investment to this basin and to ease the worries of many very worried people?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend highlights the fact that many jobs supported by the sector are in England as well as in Scotland. I commend the work he has been doing with New Anglia local enterprise partnership on supporting companies that have found themselves in difficulties, working particularly on skills and so on. I assure him that we continue to listen to the industry, to the Oil and Gas Authority, to Oil and Gas UK, and to many individual companies to see what more can be done to support this vital sector.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
OGN in North Tyneside has now shed all its 2,000 jobs. The company has been in touch with the Government to ask for help with a rather difficult contract to develop wind farms, but as yet has heard nothing about any help that can be given. Will the Minister see whether there is going to be any help, or will he meet me and representatives of OGN for the sake of these jobs?
Damian Hinds
I thank the hon. Lady. I would of course be very happy to meet her and the company to see what proposal it would put forward.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
An application for shale gas exploration in my constituency may result in many millions of pounds in community benefits. Does the Minister agree that those community benefits should go to the communities most affected by development?
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that the shale wealth fund could deliver up to £1 billion of benefits to communities hosting shale gas development. This is in addition to the existing industry scheme. My hon. Friend is entirely right that it is important that communities see those benefits and have the reassurance of additionality.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect on the economy of the UK leaving the EU.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
12. What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect on the economy of the UK leaving the EU.
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
My responsibility as Chancellor is for jobs, livelihoods and living standards. It is clear to me that a UK exit from the EU would be a long, costly and messy divorce that would hurt all those things. We have already seen sterling fall, and yesterday HSBC predicted a further 15% to 20% slump in the event of a vote to leave. The finance Ministers and central bank governors of the G20 concluded at the weekend that a British exit would cause an economic shock not just to the UK but to Europe and the world. What people are asking for in this referendum campaign is a serious, sober and principled assessment from the Government setting out the facts. I can announce today that the Treasury will publish before 23 June a comprehensive analysis of our membership of a reformed EU and the alternatives, including the long-term economic costs and benefits of EU membership and the risks associated with an exit.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Given that up to 140,000 jobs and half of the north-east region’s exports rely on Britain’s membership of the European Union, does the Chancellor agree with me and the majority of members of the North East chamber of commerce that an exit from the EU would be extremely damaging for north-east economic growth and regeneration?
Mr Osborne
Yes, I agree with both the hon. Lady and businesses in the north-east. Of course, the north-east has thrived by attracting big inward investment for car manufacturing and train manufacturing, most recently in Newton Aycliffe. One of the things that those who are advocating exit from the EU have to answer is, for example, what the alternative arrangement is for a large car factory in north-east England. Could it export its cars to mainland Europe without tariffs? It is not obvious that it is possible to do that without paying towards the EU budget and accepting the free movement of people.
Mr Osborne
I believe that the best way to help the UK steel industry is both to take action at home and through being part of a large economic bloc—in other words, the European Union—raising our concerns about, for example, Chinese steel dumping. Frankly, when we make that argument with China, our voice will be amplified if we make it as part of the EU as opposed to making it alone.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
In the event of a no vote, the Government have committed themselves to triggering article 50 straight away. I cannot see the point of that. Why do not the Government give some time between a no vote and the triggering of article 50, to enable a discussion to take place with counterparties and see the extent to which good faith could be established with the countries of the European Union? It seems illogical to restrict ourselves in that way.
Mr Osborne
It is not illogical that if the country votes to leave, we leave the European Union. That is the choice for the people of this country. The only available mechanism is the triggering of article 50, which gives a two-year time limit. Of course, we would try to negotiate in good faith and an extension can be achieved, but only with the consent of 27 other nations. People need to be aware that there are not going to be two referendums. It is decision day on 23 June. People need to choose and I think that voting to remain in the EU is the best outcome for our economic and national security.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Is it not extraordinary that the Chancellor asked the G20 to make that statement, and is it not the case that he made that request so that it could tee up this element of “Project Fear”?
Mr Osborne
The idea that the US Treasury Secretary, the head of the International Monetary Fund and, indeed, the Governor of the Central Bank of China dance to a British tune is, I am afraid, fanciful. Governors of central banks and the Finance Ministers of the G20 are saying the same thing as every major independent economic institution: that a British exit would cause an immediate economic shock and have longer economic costs. I totally understand why many of the people advocating exit want to do so, but, to be frank, they accept that there would be a short-term and potentially long-term economic cost. We should have that on the table, which is why the Treasury is going to produce its analysis.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Despite the recent gulag debacle, does the Chancellor agree that UK membership of the European Union should make it easier to clamp down on immoral tax avoidance by multinational companies?
Mr Osborne
I know that Russia Today is the favoured channel of the Labour leadership, but this is Treasury questions. We are raising with the European Union—this is another example of where being part of a bigger club helps—the possibility of getting a pan-European agreement for country-by-country public reporting so that we can see what multinational companies are paying in different countries. Of course, our ability to achieve that is amplified by being part of the EU.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
If my right hon. Friend’s rather apocalyptic view of our leaving the European Union is correct, was it not irresponsible and inaccurate of the Prime Minister to say that he ruled nothing out prior to the completion of the most unsatisfactory renegotiation?
Mr Osborne
We have secured a renegotiation that I think addresses the principal British concerns about our membership of the European Union, and now we can advocate membership of this reformed EU. I think we will be stronger, safer and better off in that European Union.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
19. Between 2007 and 2013, more than 8,000 businesses in the north-west were able to start up, thanks to EU funding. I welcome the Chancellor’s comments this morning about the analysis that he will put forward before 23 June. Will that include specific detail about the impact of leaving the EU on the economy of the north-west?
Mr Osborne
I am happy to take on board the hon. Lady’s request about the impact that an exit would have on the north-west of England. I am a north-west MP, and I know that many businesses in the north-west have access to that big free trade single market, which is the largest market in the world. All the alternatives on offer, whether we go for the approaches taken in Norway, Switzerland, Canada or the World Trade Organisation—of course, those who advocate withdrawal have not been able to settle on one approach—would involve some kind of barrier to entry, or we would have to pay into the EU budget, as Norway does, and accept free movement of people, which is one of the complaints about EU membership. Examining the alternatives, as we will do in the coming days, will throw a spotlight on the choice facing the country.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Should the British people decide to vote leave on 23 June, what arguments would the Chancellor deploy on 24 June in favour of the United Kingdom to attract investors and encourage them to invest in the United Kingdom rather than in other countries in Europe?
Mr Osborne
I will always fight, and the Government will always fight, for the best interests of the United Kingdom, and we will do whatever we can in response to the verdict of the people. My recommendation, and the recommendation of the British Government, is that we are better off in the reformed EU—
Mr Osborne
The point I make to my hon. Friend is that, of course, we will have to handle the situation if the British people choose to exit, and I would always want to stress that we are a great country to invest in, but I think that that argument will be weaker if we are not in the EU.
Mr Speaker
We are deeply grateful, but we must try to attend to the questions asked, and to do so in a timely way, because progress is desperately slow. Members can do better than that, one would hope.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Would there not be a double whammy if Britain left the EU? First, there is the widely predicted risk of depreciation, which will lead to higher interest rates. Secondly, any notion that our exporters would benefit from a cheaper pound is more than offset by the additional tariff barriers that those firms would encounter worldwide.
Mr Osborne
The former shadow Chancellor is right to point to both the immediate economic shock, which I think is generally accepted—even those who, for perfectly honourable reasons, advocate withdrawal, accept that there would be an immediate economic dislocation—and the longer-term costs. If we tell Britain to make this leap in the dark, we have to be able to answer the question: what is the alternative? How do we reassure the car manufacturer in north-east England that tariffs will not be imposed on its cars, as a result of which it will not be so competitive and there will not be so many jobs in its factory? Those are the questions for this big national debate.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Those who wish us to stay in the European Union say on the one hand that we are an insignificant economy and too small to stand on our own, but on the other hand that if we leave the European Union it will cause an economic meltdown around the world. They cannot both be true, Chancellor.
Mr Osborne
Our argument is that we will be stronger and better off inside the European Union. That is the positive choice that we face as a country. I, personally, do not think that we should leave the EU, but even those who contemplate doing so should think about this. With the economic situation that the world faces at the moment, and with the geopolitical situation that we face in Europe with Putin on our doorstep and the crisis in the middle east, is this the right moment to leave? My strong advice, the advice of the British Cabinet and the advice of the British Government is that we remain in this reformed EU.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was in London yesterday making the case for the UK to remain in the EU. She made the point that access to that market supports some 300,000 jobs in Scotland and some 3 million jobs in the UK. May I ask the Chancellor to agree with me—I am sure he will—that in terms of EU membership, trade deals are easier to agree as a bloc, harmonised regulation helps businesses to export and, notwithstanding the fact that improvements can always be made, being a member of the EU benefits consumers as well?
Mr Osborne
I agree that Scotland benefits from both being part of the United Kingdom and being part of the European Union. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that EU agreements on things such as air travel and mobile phone charges have reduced costs for consumers. It is also the case that a depreciation in sterling leads to increased inflation.
Stewart Hosie
The extent to which the EU has succeeded is actually quite remarkable in terms of free trade, free movement—we think it is a boon—and, indeed, the commensurate protections for the environment, social protection and employment rights. These substantial achievements of the European Union are to be celebrated, not renounced. That is the positive case we are making. May I urge the Chancellor and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a positive case, because the in campaign does not have a 20-point lead to squander with a negative campaign?
Mr Osborne
I am making the positive case that we will be stronger, safer and better off, which are all positive outcomes for our country, and I am pointing out that there are question marks over the alternatives. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that we do not know what the leap in the dark would entail, but of course I want to do this in a positive way. There is a healthy debate across our political system as well as across our country, but I take the view of Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment, which is that “I won’t speak ill of a Conservative.”
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
3. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the national living wage on wage growth.
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The national living wage will mean that a full-time minimum-wage worker benefiting from the policy will earn over £4,000 more by 2020 in cash terms, a rise of more than 35%. Due to the ripple effects on those on higher incomes, up to 6 million workers will benefit. The national living wage will drive up productivity; it will make sure that work pays; it is progressive and fair; and I am proud it is being introduced by a Conservative Government.
Royston Smith
I thank the Chancellor for his response. I am delighted that the national living wage will come into force from 1 April because Southampton has a high number of low-paid workers, which this policy addresses. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give my constituents that their jobs will be protected as a consequence of this wage rise and a strong local economy?
Mr Osborne
The assurance I can give is that, alongside the national living wage, we have cut taxes for businesses so that they have more money to invest in their workforce. We have introduced and increased the employment allowance, which helps small businesses in particular. I introduced that increase at the same time as announcing the national living wage. We are of course making big investments in the Southampton economy so that it is a great place to grow a business and employ people. All those things will help the hard-working people my hon. Friend represents so well.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Wage growth matters, but surely it is the bottom line of your payslip that really counts. That is why the Chancellor is wrong to say that this is progressive. The Resolution Foundation has found that, over the next Parliament, those in the top half of our income distribution will benefit more than those at the bottom. How can the Chancellor say that what he has done will help those with the least?
Mr Osborne
The hon. Lady seems to be opposing the national living wage. I think it is a progressive policy. Indeed, it was based on work by the Resolution Foundation. If you want a regressive policy, I will give you one. How about increasing the basic rate of income tax? That is what the Labour party is proposing in Scotland—the first sign of what an economic policy would look like under this new Labour leadership. How can an increase in the basic rate of income tax, which would hit people earning over £11,000, be remotely progressive or fair?
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
22. Most businesses, as well as workers, in my constituency warmly welcome the introduction of the national living wage and the increased spending power it will deliver. Will the Chancellor and his team carefully monitor the implementation of the national living wage to see whether there are any unintended consequences, particularly in sectors where margins are already small, such as farming, social care and hospitality?
Mr Osborne
We will of course monitor the impact of all our policies on the economy and on particular sectors. That is one of the reasons why, alongside introducing the national living wage, we have introduced the new council tax supplement for the social care sector. The Office for Budget Responsibility analysis when we announced the national living wage was that, while in theory 60,000 jobs could be lost in the future that might otherwise have been created, the other policies we were pursuing would see over 1 million new jobs created, so the overall effect is an increase in employment of over 1 million.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
How can the Treasury ensure that employers do not reduce the hours of work of their employees, many of whom are in receipt of low incomes?
Mr Osborne
Many employer organisations and businesses have welcomed the national living wage, and many studies suggest that having a higher floor for wages drives up productivity, which, as the hon. Lady will know, is one of Britain’s great economic challenges.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
4. What progress has been made on implementing the charter for budget responsibility.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
As part of our long-term economic plan, the Government’s charter for budget responsibility was approved by Parliament on 15 October 2015. The charter sets a path to this country’s long-term financial health and to a surplus. Unlike other parties in this House, we will be strong and consistent in our support for the charter. The Budget is on 16 March.
Mark Garnier
In 2010, the budget deficit stood at 11.1% of GDP. This year, it is set to be down by two thirds at 3.9% of GDP, which is a remarkable achievement given the economic headwinds coming from outside the UK. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he is having with other parties, in particular those on the shadow Front Bench, about how to reduce the budget deficit and turn it into a surplus, and are they proving to be helpful?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for our budget reduction efforts. I have had no such discussions so far, nor any submissions from those on the Opposition Front Bench. I have, however, received a submission from Ed Balls’s former head of policy, Karim Palant, who said of the shadow Chancellor’s changing position on the charter:
“This kind of chaos less than a month into the job is the kind of blow even significant political figures struggle to recover from.”
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I agree that we need to reduce the debt and the deficit, but with interest rates at record lows and the International Monetary Fund forecasting that public and private investment will fall from 30th to 31st in the OECD league table, should we not be taking advantage of low interest rates to invest in our creaking infrastructure, airport capacity, road and rail, and flood defences?
Greg Hands
I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for deficit reduction. It is good to have her back. I must remind her, however, that in the last Parliament she voted against virtually every single deficit reduction measure the Government took. We have a big programme of infrastructure investment worth £100 billion over the course of this Parliament, which includes transport infrastructure and other measures that will help her constituents and people across the country.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
As the IMF has just been mentioned, does the Chief Secretary agree that its statement last week that we have
“delivered robust growth, record high employment, a significant reduction in fiscal deficits, and increased financial sector resilience”
is all good news that we should be welcoming? There is more to be done and I wonder whether he is looking forward to the pearls of wisdom that might come from the Opposition, now that they have the benefit of Mr Varoufakis.
Greg Hands
The IMF has been clear in its endorsement of the charter for budget responsibility:
“The transparency of the new rule—with a focus on headline balances and a simple and well-defined escape clause in the event of very low growth—is welcome.”
It goes on to commend us on having the “appropriate level of flexibility” in the charter. In respect of any external advisers that are taken on by the Labour party, it would appear from The Sun this morning that Labour MPs are extremely unhappy—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sit down. It is a terrible waste of time—long-winded, boring and unnecessary.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
In the debates at the time of the charter, I and many others warned the Chancellor of the potential impact of global adverse headwinds. The Chancellor responded by boasting
“of having an economic plan that actually produces better results than were forecast”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1385.]
Since then, we have seen business investment fall, his export target recede into the distance, the trade deficit widen, manufacturing and construction enter recession, and the biggest productivity gap for a generation. Last week, to crown it all, the Chancellor told us the economy is smaller than we thought. I say to him that if his economic plan is now producing worse results than forecast, imposing more stealth taxes and cuts in the Budget will only—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Thank you. We need a question mark. [Interruption.] Order, order. I said what I said because Ministers are responsible for answering for Government policy, not that of the Opposition. People who ask questions, be they from the Front or the Back Bench, must do so pithily. A pithy reply, Chief Secretary.
Greg Hands
All forecasts at the moment still show the UK performing extremely well, with strong rates of growth compared with other G7 countries. The Chancellor was right to say over the weekend that we may need to undertake further reductions in spending because this country can afford only what it can afford. He went on to say:
“I’m absolutely determined that first and foremost in this uncertain time we have economic security. That’s what people rely on.”
I am equally clear that it would be a fundamental disaster for this country if we pursued the policies that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has been promoting in the six months that he has been shadow Chancellor.
John McDonnell
Can we address one of the domestic threats to our economy? This week the former Governor of the Bank of England warned that bankers have not learned the lessons from 2008, and without reform of the financial system, another crisis is certain. Will the Chancellor take responsibility for the domestic vulnerabilities within our economy that have built up under his watch? Will he withdraw his proposals to water down the regulatory regime for senior bankers?
Greg Hands
I remind the shadow Chancellor that, over the past five and a half years, this Government have been fixing the problems in our banking system, after the poor regulation and tripartite regime that we inherited from the previous Government. We have been taking action. On economic policy, I just have to look around at the Labour party and see what kind of reactions there are.
Mr Speaker
Sit down. This is about Government policy, and progress is slower than at previous Treasury questions. The Minister should try to stick to Government policy, upon which briefly he can, and should, speak.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
5. What fiscal steps he is taking to help first-time homebuyers.
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Government want to make home ownership a reality for as many people as possible, which is why we are building 400,000 new homes and have extended Help to Buy. Our new Help to Buy ISA, launched a year ago at the Budget, is already being used by almost one third of a million families to save for their first home—confirmation that the Conservative Government are on the side of home ownership.
Huw Merriman
Recent figures show that 82% of buyers who used Help to Buy would not have been able to buy their home without that scheme. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives are helping hard-working people to realise their dreams of home ownership? Is he aware of alternative economic policies and the risk that they pose to families in my constituency?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right, and 130,000 people have made use of our Help to Buy scheme, which has helped people in his constituency and elsewhere to get on the housing ladder. At the same time, we are seeking to increase supply by building more homes for people to buy. First-time buyers were down by more than 50% under the previous Labour Government, but they are up by 60% with us.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor makes great claim for his policy, but in inner-London in my constituency, housing is a real crisis. This morning I met the head of our clinical commissioning group. We have a crisis in GP recruitment and in hospital doctor appointments. Even highly paid doctors cannot afford to get on the housing ladder in my constituency, and that is causing a crisis in public services. What will he do about that?
Mr Osborne
We are doing two things about that. First, we are building more homes in London than were ever built under the previous Labour Government, and we have also just introduced Help to Buy London, so that we help Londoners deal with the very high cost of housing in the capital.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
After six years as Chancellor, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether home ownership went up or down between 2010 and 2015?
Mr Osborne
When I first became Chancellor we were in the aftermath of a collapse in the housing market, so it took a couple of years to get house building going again. House building starts are now up, and the number of first-time buyers has risen by 60% since I became Chancellor. It was down by 50% under the last Labour Government.
Seema Malhotra
There you have it, Mr Speaker. We know from the English housing survey that 201,000 fewer households owned a home in 2015 than five years ago, compared with an increase of 1 million under Labour. By 2025, nine out of 10 Britons under 35 on modest incomes will not be able to afford a home. Rents in the private sector are soaring, and the housing benefit bill is likely to be £350 million more than the Chancellor forecast last year. Is his record on housing investment one of failure, with British families now literally paying the price?
Mr Osborne
Housing starts are higher than they were when I became the Chancellor, but what people need—homeowners or people who are building houses—above all is economic security, which is what the Government are seeking to deliver. Frankly, the fact that the Labour party is now getting its advice from Yanis Varoufakis and the revolutionary Marxist broadcaster Paul Mason does not suggest to me that it has an answer to economic security. Presumably Labour chose those two because Chairman Mao was dead and Micky Mouse was busy.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
6. What support his Department provides for British citizens involved in tax disputes with other countries.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Tax treaties provide protection for UK citizens from discriminatory taxation in other countries. The UK has one of the largest treaty networks, with more than 120 treaties in force. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs cannot intervene where a taxpayer is in dispute with a foreign revenue authority on a domestic issue. However, where a UK resident believes that a treaty partner is not applying the treaty properly, they can request HMRC to raise the issue with the other revenue authority.
Neil Gray
I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. My constituent David Duncan is currently being pursued by HMRC’s mutual assistance in the recovery of debt team for a tax payment relating to a time when he was residing in Germany but working in South Korea. Mr Duncan had been assured by his employer that he would have to—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry but this is just too long. This is a story, not a question. One sentence. What is it?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
7. What assessment he has made of the effects on the economy of the reduction in duty on spirits announced in the 2015 Budget.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
The 2% duty cut at the March Budget 2015 continues to support the 296,000 people across the sector, including such distilleries as Highland Park in the right hon. Gentleman’s Orkney and Shetland constituency.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister will recall that, last year, the Red Book estimated that the cuts in alcohol duties would lead to a reduction of £185 million in revenue. In fact, from April 2015 through to January 2016, we have seen a £190 million increase in revenues. Will he therefore look very carefully at the request from the Scotch whisky industry for a further 2% cut in spirits duties this year?
Damian Hinds
I know how much the sector values the cut in the duty—it was the first since 1996—and it is great to see the industry in good health, with the number of distilleries and exports to other parts of the world growing strongly. I have received representations from the Scotch Whisky Association among others in relation to the upcoming Budget.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Any changes or reductions in spirit duty will impact on the market for other drinks, such as beer. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but this Government and this Chancellor scrapped Labour’s hated beer duty escalator and cut beer duty three times, which led to more beer sales and more revenue for the Treasury, and which saved hundreds of pubs. Will he continue that support in future?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend speaks in exactly the right spirit. He is the representative of Burton, the home of beer, and nobody has done more to advocate for that important British industry. The Budget is on 16 March. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes any and all changes to any duties at such fiscal events.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Scotch whisky is the biggest net contributor to UK trade in goods. Without it, the UK’s trade deficit would be 11% larger. Manufacturers across Scotland, including Spey in my constituency, that have experience of exporting know that domestic rates of tax have an impact on the attitude of international markets. What consideration has the Chancellor given to industry calls to reduce the excise in the upcoming Budget?
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is always very alive to representations from the Scotch whisky industry. Of course, that product accounts for some 25% of UK food and drink exports. Japan has been a strong export market for the sector, but others have not worked out so well. We continue to listen to what that important sector has to say.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
8. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of employment.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
The employment level stands at 31.4 million, which represents more people in work in the UK than ever before. In the past year, employment growth has been driven by full-time workers and by high and medium-skilled occupations. That demonstrates that we are now moving into the next phase of our recovery, with high-quality employment helping to boost productivity and raise living standards across the country.
Alex Chalk
The number of people in my constituency relying on key out-of-work benefits has fallen by more than 70% since 2010. Does the Minister agree that continuing to invest in GCHQ is key to safeguarding that progress, as it supports the high value cyber-jobs in the state sector and, crucially, the civilian sector?
Greg Hands
The Chancellor announced in the spending review that we would be investing more in cyber and that Cheltenham would see those benefits. My hon. Friend is right to praise the employment picture and performance in Cheltenham. It has seen more than 4,000 people get into work, as well as 3,000 fewer people in unemployment. Across the UK as a whole, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast an increase in employment of 1.1 million over the course of the Parliament.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
15. Christians Against Poverty has found that 72% of people on prepayment meters, who are often working, fall behind in their council tax and other bills. What assessment has been made of the impact of this kind of tariff on household debt?
Greg Hands
We monitor household debt on an ongoing basis. If the hon. Lady has specific cases she would like to show me, I am sure we could look at them and pass them on to the Department for Work and Pensions and others. I have to say, however, that overall the employment picture remains extremely strong. We have an employment rate of 74.1%. Since the first quarter of 2010, the UK employment rate has grown more than in any other G7 country.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
What more support, pension-wise, can the Chancellor give to the self-employed? Recent trends suggest that in five years’ time 4.7 million British people will be self-employed and will not benefit from auto-enrolment.
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. Helping the self-employed is one of the Government’s key priorities. We will have to see what is in the Budget on 16 March.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that I, like many Members, represent a university town? The university is one of the best and biggest employers in my constituency. Universities up and down the country are terrified of our leaving the EU. Our universities receive the most money for research and collaboration of any country in the EU. They will be destroyed by leaving the EU.
Greg Hands
I join the hon. Gentleman in campaigning for the UK to remain a member of the EU. That is the right thing for us to do both for the public finances overall and for the future of the UK economy, as the G20 communiqué made clear over the weekend. It may well have an impact on the university sector, too. I am sure that that will be one of the questions featured in the forthcoming debate leading into the referendum.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
9. If he will reopen the compensation scheme for Equitable Life policyholders.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
The Equitable Life payment scheme has now successfully traced and paid 90% of eligible policyholders. Payments to with-profits annuitants will continue for the life of these annuities. The scheme is now closed to new claims.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for that response, but given that many policyholders lost out because of a failure of regulation, which should be overseen by not just this Government but any Government, is it not fair that those policyholders should receive compensation? If they do not, how can any investor have any confidence in the regulatory system that is put in place?
Harriett Baldwin
The Chancellor has done more than anyone else to tackle the regulatory failure of the 1990s with regard to Equitable Life. For example, with-profits annuitants will receive full compensation for the life of the annuity, pre-1992 annuitants have received ex gratia payments of up to £10,000, and £775 million has been paid out tax-free to others, despite the constrained public finances. Those on pensions credit got a doubling of their payment just before Christmas.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Will the Minister clarify how much of the £1.5 billion promised by the Government has been delivered and handed over?
Harriett Baldwin
I regularly update Parliament on the precise figures. So far, we are at almost £1 billion. Of course, the payments for the annuitants will continue for the rest of their lives.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
10. What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage small businesses to grow.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are cutting taxes to encourage small businesses to grow. Corporation tax will fall to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020—the lowest in the G20. The employment allowance will rise by 50% this April, giving employers a £3,000 discount on national insurance contributions, and the Seed enterprise investment scheme supports investment in small, early-stage companies, helping more than 2,900 companies to raise over £250 million.
Neil Carmichael
Does the Minister agree that that impressive package for small businesses will equip them to benefit from the extension of the single market as negotiated by the Prime Minister, including in energy and services, and that this provides an even more emphatic case to remain in the European Union?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The plans to move towards quarterly online tax reporting are proving to be deeply unpopular with small businesses, so will the Chancellor confirm the impact on administration costs for small businesses of the Government’s plans for quarterly reporting to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs?
Mr Gauke
Overall, the Government are clear that HMRC’s target is to reduce the burden on businesses by £400 million by the end of this Parliament. Moving towards a digital taxation system is something that can help businesses to reduce their costs. We are consulting on the details, but let me make it absolutely clear that there will be no quarterly tax returns, as it has been wrongly reported that there will be in some cases.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
13. What fiscal steps he is taking to help people keep more of their earnings.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government have committed to raising the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher-rate threshold to £50,000 by the end of this Parliament. At the summer Budget, the Government took the first steps towards meeting these commitments by increasing the personal allowance to £11,000 and raising the higher-rate threshold to £43,000 in 2016-17. Twenty-nine million people will pay less tax after these changes and 570,000 will be taken out of income tax altogether.
Jack Lopresti
Does the Minister agree that it would be better to encourage savings by allowing people to keep more of their own money by increasing the tax limit on pensions rather than reducing it, particularly at a time when savers are struggling to get decent returns?
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
14. What steps he is taking to improve productivity in the UK.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
The Government have published their productivity plan, “Fixing the foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation”. This plan outlines the steps we are taking to encourage further investment in the drivers of productivity growth, including science, education, skills and infrastructure. It also sets out the way in which the Government are promoting a dynamic economy through reforming planning laws, boosting competition and creating a northern powerhouse.
John Mc Nally
According to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, UK productivity measured by output per hour is now 18 percentage points below the average of the rest of the G7 economies—the widest gap since records began. Why is productivity deteriorating under this Chancellor?
Greg Hands
I do not accept that. We accept that productivity is a problem, but productivity output per hour is now 0.7% higher than its pre-crisis peak. Productivity is improving at the moment. Clearly, we need to do more, which is why we have laid out a national productivity plan with a set of key targets in key areas such as research infrastructure by creating the National Infrastructure Commission, cutting corporation tax and doing a lot more besides.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure that the economy is stable and prosperous.
Kirsten Oswald
Has the Chancellor had a chance to read last week’s National Audit Office report on financial services mis-selling? Does he agree that it draws attention to a missed opportunity to deliver a financial advice sector that protects small-scale investors when things go wrong, as they did in the case of the Connaught fund, with devastating results for a number of my constituents?
Mr Osborne
We have sought to increase consumer protection by introducing a powerful new consumer protection agency in the form of the Financial Conduct Authority, and we have sought to give more financial advice to individuals through, for instance, the Money Advice Service and Pension Wise. However, if the hon. Lady has any specific further ideas that we can consider, I shall be happy to do that.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
T3. The Government are making some of the biggest investments in road and rail in our nation’s history. Is my right hon. Friend aware of any alternative investment policies, and of the impact that they would have on our nation’s economic security and, in particular, the southern powerhouse?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the big investment that is being made in our nation’s infrastructure, especially transport infrastructure. We have the biggest rail programme since the Victorian age and the biggest road programme since the 1970s, which the hon. Lady is seeing in the improvements to the A27 and M27 in her area. Of course, an economic policy that destroys all confidence in the British economy would mean no investment.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
T2. The OECD has estimated that tax havens are costing developing countries three times the global aid budget. Does the Chancellor share my frustration over the fact that the UK overseas territories have ignored the pleas of the Prime Minister, and have not introduced beneficial ownership registers? What more can be done to end the secrecy and inaction?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The United Kingdom is leading the way in respect of a public register of beneficial ownership, but other countries, including the overseas territories, are not committed to that. We continue to engage with them, because we believe that they should follow the same direction as us—as, indeed, should other countries.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
T8. Tackling the deficit should rightly be a priority for the country. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that everyone pays a fair share in meeting that objective?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to ensure that this is done fairly. Under the present Government, the richest pay a higher proportion of income tax than they did under the last Labour Government. Figures published this morning by HMRC contain, for the first time, the income tax data for 2013-14, which was when the 50p rate was reduced to 45p. The data reveal that in that year there was an £8 billion increase in revenues from additional-rate taxpayers, which completely defies the predictions made by the Labour party at the time, and shows that we have lower, competitive taxes that are paid by all.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
T4. Figures from the Public and Commercial Services Union show that 2,000 HMRC staff in Scotland face redundancy, including 150 experienced and dedicated people in Inverness. At the same time, the HMRC overtime bill is about £6 million a month. Can the Chancellor explain to my constituents how that makes any sense at all?
Mr Gauke
HMRC is engaged in changes that will be focused on 13 regional centres across the United Kingdom. The same proportion of its work force will continue to be in Scotland, which is actually a larger percentage than the population of Scotland. We are seeking to improve the efficiency of HMRC, and we believe that regional centres will enable it to achieve more for less. It is already bringing in more money and a better rate of return than we have ever had before.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
About 40,000 people in my constituency have benefited from the rise in the personal allowance since 2010. Can the Chancellor confirm that the Government will continue to help hard-working people to keep more of the money that they earn?
Mr Osborne
That is absolutely what the Government were elected to deliver. We have manifesto commitments to deliver not just the £50,000 threshold for the higher rate, but a £12,500 personal allowance, so that more people can see the benefit of either paying no tax if they are low paid, or paying less tax if they are better paid.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
T5. Will the Chancellor tell us when he is due to publish the proposals for the distribution and calculation of the apprenticeship levy to the devolved nations, and whether the Governments in those nations have agreed to it?
Mr Osborne
We are working to get those arrangements right. They are clearly complex, because of cross-border companies that will pay a single levy rate, but we are having good discussions with the Scottish Government. I think that, as with the agreement on the fiscal charter, we can work together for the benefit of the United Kingdom.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I welcome the fact that my constituents have been given more control over their finances, thanks to changes implemented by the Government. Can the Minister advise me on what steps have been taken to ensure that the regulation applied to small high street financial advisers and insurance brokers is both fair and proportionate, given the important service that they provide?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point. We have launched something called the financial advice market review, which will be reporting around the time of the Budget. We will be looking at how to make financial advice more affordable and more available, and also at how to get the right kind of regulatory balance for smaller firms.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
T6. Following reports that Hinkley Point C faces further delays, will the Chancellor revisit his decision effectively to write the French an extremely generous long-dated option and instead bring forward fall-back options?
Mr Osborne
We are working with the French Government, and all the signs are that they are committed to this project. This is a good example of how the United Kingdom, working with France and indeed attracting investment from Asia, is getting a new generation of nuclear power under way. That was promised for 20 years or more and did not happen, but it is now going to take place in Somerset.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am proud to have been part of the Government who introduced the national living wage, but I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had a chance to look at the report from the British Retail Consortium entitled “Retail 2020”, which talks about that and about the impact of internet shopping.
Mr Osborne
I did see that report yesterday. We all have to accept that the retail industry faces an enormous amount of change, particularly because of what is happening on the internet and the way in which people are shopping online. I personally think that one of the biggest changes we can make right now is to allow shops to open on a Sunday, which is the biggest single day for internet shopping. We cannot say that we want to protect our high street shops while in the same breath saying that they cannot open on one day every week, given that the internet is open 24 hours a day. We shall have a chance to vote on that question next week.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
T7. The Chancellor’s statement on ECOFIN referred to the UK seeking a multilateral agreement on making the details of the tax paid by companies publicly available on a country by country basis. Will he tell us what measures he will take to achieve that, and on what timetable? As a first step, will he admit that his Google tax deal was not a great success, and does he accept the Public Accounts Committee’s call for full transparency?
Mr Osborne
The Public Accounts Committee has investigated HMRC deals in the past and it is of course welcome to do so again. It gave HMRC a clean bill of health on its approach to these things. We are introducing country by country reporting, and the regulations came into force last week. That is happening only because this Prime Minister put the matter on the agenda in this country and internationally, and I have been calling, at the EU and at the G20, for an international agreement on public reporting so that we can know what companies are paying in different jurisdictions rather than just reading reports about it.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The local economy in Hornchurch and Upminster comprises thousands of small businesses. Can the Chancellor offer any encouragement to the Federation of Small Businesses, which is pressing for tax simplification in order to reduce the burden of tax administration for small businesses?
Mr Gauke
One of the areas in which we can make progress is the digitisation of the tax system, which could help a lot businesses. I would also make the point that the Office of Tax Simplification has been strengthened and we are putting it on a statutory footing. We are looking forward to seeing a couple of reports from it over the next few days on what we can do to help small businesses in particular.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
T9. When services that have been removed from local authority control and centralised in England have been granted the right to reclaim VAT, does the Chancellor accept that the refusal to grant that right to Police Scotland—making it the only UK force to pay VAT—just looks vindictive? Will he not reconsider that decision?
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
The Chancellor will be aware that debates have been held and questions asked in the House regarding serious allegations of collusion between banks and valuers in order to deliberately undervalue and seize assets. Has he considered the current regulations on such banks and valuers, and whether there needs to be a broader remit for the Serious Fraud Office and other organisations to investigate these serious allegations, whose number is growing?
Harriett Baldwin
I am aware of the points my hon. Friend has raised in Westminster Hall and obviously I am keen for our system to have a tough set of rules on conduct in the banking system. I would welcome the opportunity to meet him to discuss these specific allegations in more detail.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
T10. If the Chancellor believes that a strong steel sector is fundamental to a strong northern powerhouse, what steps is he taking to level the playing field for the steel industry, the foundation of our manufacturing and defence industries, so that it can have a prosperous future to match its prosperous past?
Mr Osborne
The steel industry faces a big challenge at the moment, and that is true in many other countries in the world, as the price of steel has collapsed. We have taken a number of steps to ensure the level playing field that the hon. Gentleman speaks of. First, we have taken the industry out of the energy levies that were imposing additional costs on it. Secondly, we have made sure that local areas that have had redundancies get the support they need. Thirdly, we have changed our procurement rules so that we can make sure we are buying British steel and taking into account the social impact of those steel purchases in making our value-for-money assessments. Fourthly, as I said in reply to an earlier question from him, we are working, through our partners in the EU, to make it clear that we do not and cannot support Chinese steel dumping, and that we need to take action against it.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be well aware of the widespread and cross-party support for a children’s specialist accident and trauma department at Southampton general hospital, so may I urge him to give careful consideration to the bid put together by clinicians? I know they have sent it to him and are looking for support for a match funding bid.
Mr Osborne
I am aware of the case being made—a strong case, in my view—for the children’s facilities at the Southampton hospital. It is a case advanced by my hon. Friend and other colleagues, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who has pushed it, alongside her. We are looking closely at it and I will make an announcement in due course.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Let me follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) by raising the key issue of the apprenticeship levy, because the devolved Governments are moving towards elections and we need to know about this as soon as possible. Will there be a Barnett consequential attached to it?
Mr Osborne
Our intention is to use the principles of the Barnett formula to make sure that the devolved Administrations, not only in Scotland, but in Northern Ireland, do get the resources they need. Of course we would urge them then to spend those resources on training, but that is ultimately a matter for them and the people to whom they are accountable.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Given the importance of family investment in start-up businesses, particularly science and technology businesses, where a leap of faith is often required, will the Chancellor, in the Budget, consider lifting the restrictions on family investment under the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme, so that mum and dad can invest alongside everybody else on the same terms?
Mr Osborne
I am happy to take that as a Budget representation. I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that if he turns up on Budget day, he will see my response to it. The SEIS and EIS have been enormously successful. We have to make sure that the rules are tight enough so that they are supporting the kind of entrepreneurial activity we want, rather than being used as a vehicle for tax avoidance. I think we have got the balance right so far, but I am aware of good, positive proposals that people have put forward to improve it.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Chancellor chose to give a puff to his desire for Sunday trading liberalisation, but is he aware of the study produced yesterday which showed that all there will be is a switch of activity from small shops to big shops, and that that will mean a loss of thousands of jobs? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) says that the Chancellor has already dealt with that question. As I have often had cause to observe, repetition is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons.
Mr Osborne
To repeat myself, Mr Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. Lady, because it has been the case that when we have extended opening hours we have not seen not a displacement of jobs, but an increase in jobs. That is the assessment from the retail industry. Of course, these arrangements exist in Scotland, in many European countries and in the United States. Many of those are countries with strong Christian faiths, so I do not think there is a contradiction there. We cannot in this House constantly say that we worry about our high street and then not allow high street stores to open on the day when the biggest level of internet shopping takes place. This is one of the answers to helping our high street. It is not the only one, but it is an important one.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire councils are currently preparing detailed regeneration plans. Can the Chancellor assure me that he will give them serious consideration, so that my constituents can gain maximum benefit from the northern powerhouse initiative?
Mr Osborne
Absolutely. We will give careful consideration—as I always do—to the proposals that my hon. Friend comes forward with to support North Lincolnshire and his own constituency. We have been able to make investments in new roads, reduce the tolls on the Humber bridge, and introduce enterprise zones. I would love to hear of any new ideas that he has.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Happy St David’s day to you, Mr Speaker.
The Chancellor often talks about repairing the roof when the sun is shining. Norway, a country the size of Scotland, managed to amass £810 billion in an oil fund when the sun shone. Just how much have the broad shoulders of the UK saved for a moment such as this to help north-east Scotland? Is the figure indeed zero?
Mr Osborne
We are providing support to Scotland, and that support is entrenched in the fiscal framework that we have agreed with the Scottish Government. The hon. Gentleman cannot duck his responsibilities. He wanted Scotland to be independent on 24 March—this month. If we had gone ahead with that—if the Scottish people had voted for it—there would have been a fiscal catastrophe in Scotland, because oil revenues have fallen by more than 90%. We had a question earlier from a Scottish National party Member—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting, but that was a very unseemly gesticulation by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). I remind him of his status in this House as the Chair of a Select Committee. He is an aspiring statesman and must conduct himself accordingly.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In response to an earlier question on productivity, my right hon. Friend mentioned the drivers of growth being investment in schools and investment in science and technology. Does he, like me, welcome the Government’s commitment to train 17,500 more teachers in science, technology, engineering and maths, and does he think that there is absolutely no time to waste in recruiting those teachers?
Mr Osborne
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. It is one of the big national challenges to get more children, particularly more girls, studying STEM subjects at school. The key to that is to get more STEM teachers. We have a series of incentives to drive that forward. Of course through our school freedoms, schools also have the tools to recruit teachers themselves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We must now move on. Demand invariably exceeds supply. No one is keener to facilitate questions than I, but we do need pithy questions and pithy answers.
Syria
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the cessation of hostilities in Syria.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The Syrian conflict is now almost in its sixth year. As a result of Assad’s brutality and the terror of Daesh, more than 250,000 people have lost their lives, half the population have been displaced, and more than 13.5 million people are in need of humanitarian aid.
Russia’s military intervention last autumn compounded the violence. Russia claims to be targeting terrorists, yet it has carried out strikes on moderate opposition groups and civilians. More than 1,300 civilians have been killed and 5,800 injured by Russian or regime airstrikes since the start of Russia’s campaign.
Our goal is for Syria to become a stable, peaceful state with an inclusive Government capable of protecting their people from Daesh and other extremists. Only when that happens can stability be returned to the region, which is necessary to stem the flow of people fleeing Syria and seeking refuge in Europe. The last few months have seen some progress towards that. The International Syria Support Group came together at the end of 2015 in Vienna to help to facilitate a return to a process leading to a political transition in Syria.
In December, opposition groups came together to form the higher negotiations commission, representing the widest possible range of opposition views, and nominated a team to negotiate with the regime. Proximity talks between the regime and opposition began under UN auspices in January, but were paused as a result of a deteriorating situation on the ground. The ISSG met again in Munich at the Munich security conference on 11 February, agreeing that there should be a cessation of hostilities and humanitarian access to named locations in Syria. Since then, the US and Russia have agreed at the highest levels on the terms of a cessation of hostilities. The agreement was codified in UN Security Council resolution 2268 on 26 February.
The cessation of hostilities is an important step towards ending the terrible violence in Syria and bringing a lasting political settlement. It came into force on 27 February. Since then, we have seen a reduction in violence, which is of course a huge step forwards, but we need to see that sustained and to see a reduction in the number of reported violations.
We have received reports of a number of violations, which we have passed to the UN and the ISSG co-chairs in Geneva. We need swift action to reduce those violations. We look to Russia in particular to use its influence with the regime to ensure that the cessation endures and that there are no further violations. It is crucial that the opposition see action being taken in response to allegations of violations to ensure their commitment and that of their Syrian constituents to the process.
It is essential that the cessation of hostilities supports the wider political process. We support UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura’s plans to resume peace negotiations on 7 March. Those negotiations must deliver a political transition away from Assad to a legitimate Government that can support the needs and aspirations of all Syrians and put an end to the suffering of the Syrian people.
At the same time, we call for complete and unfettered humanitarian access across Syria and an end to all violations of international humanitarian law, as set out in UN Security Council resolution 2254. We are relieved that desperately needed aid convoys are now arriving in some besieged areas of Syria, including those named in the Munich ISSG agreement of 11 February. It is imperative that that continues.
The international community and particularly Russia, which has unique influence, must put pressure on the Assad regime to lift sieges and grant full and sustained humanitarian access. As I have said, there must be a political solution to the crisis in Syria. It is imperative that the steps I have described are implemented by all parties and that the cessation of hostilities endures. The UK is working strenuously to make that happen and will continue to do so.
Jo Cox
I thank the Minister for updating the House on such a vital issue. The cessation of hostilities in Syria that began on Friday is a much needed ray of hope in this tragic civil war, yet, as he has set out, it faces serious challenges after growing reports from international non-governmental organisations and the media of numerous violations of the truce. Syrian opposition leaders have claimed that it was close to collapse over the weekend and the French Government have urgently called for a meeting of the monitoring group amid allegations that Syrian and Russian forces have seriously breached its terms. In this context, will the Minister set out specifically what action the UK is taking within the ISSG to ensure robust and transparent monitoring of the cessation agreement?
Secondly, is the UK joining efforts led by France for urgent action in the ISSG on the growing reports of violations of the cessation agreement by Assad and by Russia? Indeed, will the Minister address how it is even conceivable that the monitoring of the agreement is being jointly conducted by Russia, the same party that is responsible for the vast majority of recent civilian deaths? If the reports of Russian and regime violations are verified, what measures will the UK pursue to force a change in the calculations of both Putin and Assad? The UK has a critical role to play in giving everybody confidence in this system, in particular that the violations will be called out and the agreement protected. Are the Government considering, for example, further targeted sanctions against Russian entities in the event of further violations?
Further, what is the UK’s assessment of the mobilisation of Assad’s forces and militias to encircle Aleppo? Is this not a direct violation of the cessation agreement? Can the Minister confirm that the cessation agreement covers those areas where al-Nusra or any other Security Council-designated terrorist group is mixed with the moderate opposition? If the cessation holds this week, can the Minister confirm that negotiations on political transition will be at the very top of the agenda at the meeting in Geneva next week?
Finally, in the light of the reduction in violence, many Members of this House are deeply concerned about the lack of access to besieged areas inside Syria, particularly Daraya just outside Damascus, where people are starving to death. There is no ISIL or al-Nusra in Daraya, and it is unacceptable that the Assad regime, with the backing of Russia, is preventing this lifesaving aid, paid for by the British taxpayer, from getting to the most vulnerable. Do the Government and their partners have a deadline by which aid will reach Daraya and other besieged areas?
Mr Ellwood
I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) and her commitment to this area. She is co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Syria, and I acknowledge the work that she does in raising these matters in the Chamber and elsewhere. The House is all the wiser for it. She raises a series of issues and I will do my best to answer them, but, as I have done in the past, I will write to her with more detail.
On the hon. Lady’s last question, about making sure that aid gets through, I am pleased to see that I am joined here and supported by my colleagues from the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence. As the hon. Lady knows, we hosted the Syria conference a couple of weeks ago in order to make sure, first, that the funds were available for the United Nations organisations to get to the necessary areas to provide the aid and assistance once the cessation of hostilities had taken effect. There have been varying degrees of success in trucks getting through. She will be aware that we have to get confirmation from the regime that the trucks can have safe passage. Airdrops have been used for the first time but have been less successful, for obvious reasons—factors such as who receives the kit on the ground, the weather conditions, where the supplies land, and ownership of the supplies once the drops take place all present difficulties, but further drops will take place in the future.
The hon. Lady asks what more can be done. It is imperative that those who are putting together the ceasefire, which is happening at the highest level from the telephone calls between President Putin and President Obama, create and co-ordinate the verification model. That is not fully in place. This is a highly complex task because of the number of players involved across Syria and the challenges in making sure that verification can take place. The UK is pushing the ISSG co-chairs to investigate all allegations. We are using our own capabilities to feed into the system any violations that we become aware of so that they can be investigated. We have sent additional staff to the UN in Geneva to assist in this effort, and we are negotiating and discussing these matters with our UN Security Council colleagues.
The hon. Lady talked about the difficulties in Aleppo. The situation is concerning. In the lead-up to the cessation of hostilities, people took advantage before the cessation came into effect on 27 February. As I said in my opening remarks, it is imperative that Russia shows leadership and shows that it recognises that it has a unique place and unique influence with the Assad regime, to make sure that the purpose of the cessation of hostilities, which is to allow that political transition, is achieved.
The hon. Lady asked about the talks taking place with Staffan de Mistura on 7 March. It is critical to get the parties together. They broke apart last time because of the continued bombing that took place. It was the UN envoy who closed the meeting down before somebody walked out again. We do not want to see that repeated, which is why we are encouraging parties to resume those discussions, taking advantage of the cessation of hostilities that is in place, and we hope they are successful.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Notwithstanding the wholly understandable scepticism of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) about Russian intentions, the fact is that this ceasefire would not have happened had it not been pushed for quite hard by the Russians, alongside the United States. The Minister referred to verification mechanisms, but what practical military-to-military co-ordination is going on between the Russians and the coalition to ensure that any breaches of the ceasefire are immediately understood and brought to an end and that, as far as possible, the ceasefire is properly observed, without accidents happening and with both sides knowing what the other is doing?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, raises an important point, which I will divide in two, if I may. There is a deconfliction system that makes sure that the coalition’s aircraft and involvement are separated from Russia’s, and that has now been in place for some time. However, what we are talking about here is a verification mechanism for the cessation of hostilities. The verification process has yet to be put in place; it is still being agreed by the co-chairs—Russia and the United States—and details will emerge soon.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I very much welcome the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), and I pay tribute to her excellent work on this issue.
The world community is watching the ceasefire very closely, and we all want it to be successful, not least to allow humanitarian aid into areas blighted by the conflict, but also to give a boost to the tentative peace talks. As the ceasefire has now been in operation for a few days, I would like to ask a number of questions.
First, the letter from the Syrian National Council to Ban Ki-moon alleged there were 15 breaches of the ceasefire by Russia and the Assad regime. Following that, France called for an urgent meeting of the International Syria Support Group. Will the Minister confirm when the group will meet? What powers does it have to make a ruling on breaches of the ceasefire? Does it need unanimity to do so?
Among reported breaches of the ceasefire, the most worrying was a reported gas attack in the Irbin area, with indications of a link to the Assad regime. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are aware of that attack? What special provisions are in place to investigate chemical weapons attacks?
One key problem is a lack of agreement on which groups are terror organisations and what action is allowed. Will the Minister explain whether that will be discussed at the International Syria Support Group?
To address the humanitarian situation, we need access to areas where there are no hostilities. Will the Minister explain what steps have been taken to establish the geographical demarcation of the ceasefire?
Over the past six months, Russia has repeatedly acted to prolong the conflict. What discussions have there been with our allies in the EU to put pressure on Russia to abide by the ceasefire?
Saudi Arabia also has a key position of influence. It is especially concerning, therefore, to hear of a possible Saudi response to Russian action. Has the Minister made any representations to the Saudi Government about that?
Finally, may I ask about the status of the group Ahrar al-Sham? I understand that it was not a signatory to the ceasefire but had indicated that it would abide by it. However, it now claims that its headquarters in Idlib were attacked in a Russian airstrike—a claim backed by several sources. Will the Minister confirm whether the group is considered to be outside the terms of the ceasefire by the UK and the US?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady asked a series of questions. First, the latest UN Security Council resolution—resolution 2268—which confirmed the cessation of hostilities, underlines the importance of a previous one, resolution 2254, which is all about the ability to gain access to various areas where ownership is sometimes confusing. That is done on a very local basis to make sure that agreements take place and that UN and other convoys have the series of permissions they need, so that they are not halted at checkpoints, with the food being taken from them and used as a weapon of war. It is difficult for me to give a comprehensive reply for the whole of Syria, but these things are done on an area-by-area basis. The method for taking deliveries also reflects the threat level. Clearly, there are areas surrounded by Daesh, where it is impossible to have such agreements.
The hon. Lady spoke about the chemical weapons attack. A number of UN organisations are looking into a wider piece to do with the use of chemical weapons across Syria. They are in the process of completing a report to the UN, which is due shortly. If I may, I will write to her with more details on that.
On the work being done to provide international humanitarian aid, I go back to the conference we had, where we were able to garner an awful lot of support, including from Saudi Arabia, for making sure that money is filtered through the various UN organisations so that they can get through to the various locations.
The hon. Lady mentions a number of other extremist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham, and there is Jaysh al-Islam as well. They have not been considered as moderate; they have not been included in the discussions, and they were not represented in the talks where the Saudis brought the moderate groups together.[Official Report, 9 March 2016, Vol. 607, c. 1MC.]
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I just ask where the Foreign Secretary is? I know he is very busy, but the House of Commons must always come first. We are at least owed an explanation.
May I suggest that the Labour and Conservative establishments, in being such an outrider for the overthrow of unpleasant authoritarian regimes—whether Gaddafi’s, Assad’s or Saddam’s—have merely provided an opening for far worse, totalitarian movements? It is also arguable that we have had very little influence in the latest round of peace negotiations, as the Americans cosy up to the Russians. Will the Foreign Office now at least accept that there may be some merit in Assad being allowed to go gracefully in elections, however imperfect?
Mr Ellwood
First, may I say that I will not take it personally that my hon. Friend feels I am not adequate to answer today’s question? This is an urgent question, and the Foreign Secretary was not able to get here. I will certainly do my best to convey to him the fact that my hon. Friend would have loved to see him instead of me.
On the transition process, we ended 2015, after five years of hostilities, with opposition groups coming together for the first time. For the first time, we had international stakeholders, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, around the table at the Vienna talks discussing these matters. That was the first time a transition process was discussed, the first time an 18-month process was to be put in place and the first time life after Assad was actually considered.
It is important to recognise that it must be for all the people of Syria to decide their fate, whether they are Kurds, Druze, Alawites or Sunnis. We must remember that 80% of the deaths in Syria have been caused by Assad and his regime. That is why we say that it would be inappropriate for him to participate in the long-term future of the country. The whole purpose of bringing these organisations together to discuss the democratic process is that they will decide the transition away from Assad.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
May I join the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), in urging that the correct policy for Her Majesty’s Government is to give every facility to the rapid establishment of a verification regime? We can engage in tit-for-tat allegations about who is breaching what, but this is the only ceasefire we have. The Minister will know that there were reports this morning from Kurdish forces about our NATO ally using the ceasefire as an opportunity to build up forces against them, so the establishment of the verification regime is key.
Will the Minister tell us in more detail about the urgency of attempts to bring in humanitarian relief? Which convoys have been allowed through and which have been stopped? Which airstrikes have been successful and which have not? Given the overwhelming urgency of the humanitarian crisis, the House would appreciate it if the Minister found a way to provide Members with exact detail on that.
Mr Ellwood
I have gone into some detail about the urgency of the humanitarian relief work. This is partly why a cessation of hostilities was needed. In places such as Madaya, people have resorted to eating pets, such is their plight. Thanks to the agreement between Lavrov and John Kerry at the Munich security conference, which led to discussions between Putin and President Obama, we have seen this build-up of a cessation of hostilities. I was cautiously optimistic when I saw President Putin make a rare live appearance on Russian television stating his commitment to ensuring that a cessation of hostilities came about.
However, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, experience shows that whenever a deadline is put into a ceasefire or cessation of hostilities, there is then an effort by hardliners—by opportunists—to take advantage of the period before the deadline comes into force to gain territory, to further their lines and to make a greater impact, so that when the hostilities cease they are in a stronger position. That is exactly what we have seen in this case. We require every country, whether it be Turkey, Russia or Assad’s regime, to hold fast—to recognise that the world is watching and that although the humanitarian situation is absolutely dire, there is an international community that wants to help and can do so only if it has access to the various areas that I have articulated.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is there any evidence whatsoever that Assad would be willing to go graciously? Does not all the evidence show that he is determined to stay in power? As for Russia, would it not be right to conclude that it has never really been interested in using its military might against Daesh, because first and foremost it wants to consolidate in every possible way the Assad regime, which, as the Minister said, has been responsible for some of the worst crimes committed in the past 25 or 30 years? Russia has a large moral responsibility for what is occurring on the ground.
Mr Ellwood
I partly agree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes very clear, as I have, the atrocities that Assad has inflicted. That is why we believe there is no long-term place for his involvement. What has happened is the recognition that there needs to be a very clear transition process. We should not just be talking about Assad. Assad and his cohorts—his family and so forth—have a firm grip on the top of the regime. It is simply not possible to remove the individual man and then assume that life can move on; it is far more complex than that, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.
We should also recognise—though this is no excuse for Russia’s behaviour—that Russia has had a long-term interest in the country since 1946, when it started to train the new Syrian army after Syria gained its independence. Syria backed the Soviets during the cold war. Assad’s father trained as a MiG pilot in Russia. There is a bond between the country that we cannot ignore, and that is why Russia is there, but we need it to use its influence in a positive way. We need Russia to recognise the damage Assad has done and the fact that the people of Syria deserve better than this. When I say “the people of Syria”, I mean all of Syria, not just one particular grouping or sectarian area.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Government have placed great importance on the need for the 70,000 moderates they estimate are taking on Assad to swing round and take the ground battle to Daesh, given that we all accept that airstrikes alone will not succeed against Daesh and it is becoming increasingly evident that there are already too many aircraft chasing too few targets. What progress is being made with those plans, and are the Government still convinced that there are 70,000 moderates left?
Mr Ellwood
The point about the 70,000 moderates has been raised before. The figure is an estimate. We should understand that this is a very divided group of people who have been standing up to Assad since the Arab spring. They are the pockets of resistance that had a choice, when Assad started to bomb and kill his own people, either to go extremist—to go fundamentalist—or to say, “No, I want something different. I do not want to be part of the Ba’ath party in the future; I want the freedoms that I am seeing develop in other parts of the Arab world.” They are disparate. They are in Aleppo in the north, through to Idlib, through to parts of Damascus, and down to Daraa in the south. Those pockets of people have stood up, and they have now come together by participating in the Geneva talks that are taking place thanks to the leadership of Saudi Arabia. So yes, they are not united in the sense that we would like them to be, but we are moving forward, and they now need to be part of the process that works out what the country looks like post-Assad.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
In my view, the people of Syria have paid a really dreadful price for our failure to act three years ago after Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, and even earlier than that.
I want to ask the Minister about a glimmer of hope: the elections in Iran and the impact they might have on the situation in the middle east and in Syria in particular. Does he think that what has happened in Iran vindicates the policy that his Government, the previous Labour Government, Europe and President Obama have pursued with the Iranian regime?
Mr Ellwood
On the first point, there is no point in saying so now, but many of us will look back at how different life would have been, and how things would have changed, had we taken different action on a punitive strike. The reason why Assad is back in play now is that Russia has backed him. He was falling—we were seeing his slow demise—and Russia came back in to support its person. That is why we are in the position that we are in today.
The right hon. Gentleman asks a very relevant question that is slightly outside the scope of this subject, but with your permission, Mr Speaker, I will say that we are cautiously optimistic and welcome what has happened in Tehran. There are only early results yet, but with the moderates in the Assembly of Experts and in the Majlis itself, this is the first opportunity for the people of Iran to have a say in the future of their country.
However, Iran will be judged by its actions because of its proxy involvement with Hezbollah in Lebanon, in Damascus in Syria, in Baghdad in Iraq, in Sana’a in Yemen, and in Bahrain. If we see changes there, we will know that we are working with a different Iran, but until then we should expect the same.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) for raising this issue. Following John Kerry’s statement that it may be too late to keep Syria whole, will the Minister update the House on any conversations he has had with his American counterpart on the possible partition of Syria?
Mr Ellwood
It is for the people of Syria to determine their future as to how the country needs to be managed and should be governed. We are at the very, very early stages. It would be wrong to go further than that. History shows that Britain has not always been in the best place to make its assessments, not least in this particular patch of the world.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Russia has absolutely no desire, I am sure, to bring hope or humanitarian relief to many areas of Syria; rather, it wants to increase fear and despair, and cause the collapse of the Opposition. I am also sure that it hopes that the peace period will bring a greater influx of refugees fleeing from Syria towards the west. Are we monitoring whether that is happening? Are we using our intelligence and surveillance capability as part of that monitoring given the apparent need for observation of what the Russians and the Assad regime are doing, in violation of the peace process?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady, who follows these matters very seriously in the Committees that she is involved with, puts her finger on a very important point. This is not just about Syria; it is also about the wider strategic implications of what is happening elsewhere, including the role that Russia is playing on the international stage, not least in Ukraine and Crimea, and the consequences of the influx of refugees and its political impact across Europe. We are not in any way blind to that. That is all the more reason why we need to continue our pressure at the United Nations Security Council in making sure that a verification mechanism comes into play as soon as possible.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
It is a moral outrage to take the life of any non-combatant. What estimate have the Government made of the number of non-combatants killed by Russia, and can the Minister reassure my constituents that the Royal Air Force is not responsible for any deaths of non-combatants?
Mr Ellwood
I can confirm the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question. The rules of engagement that we follow are very robust indeed. As I said in my opening remarks, we estimate that more than 1,300 civilians have been killed either by Russia or by Russian-supported airstrikes, and another 5,800 have been injured.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On the subject of airdrops, could the Minister confirm whether the RAF have been involved in them; whether they are taking place with the formal agreement or just the acquiescence of the Russians and Assad; and whether they could be scaled up if Assad and Putin continue to starve Syrian civilians?
Mr Ellwood
The coalition does a lot of planning in order to establish the best mechanism to provide aid relief in any particular area. The RAF itself has not been involved in airdrops per se; the United States has been leading on that. As I have said, they have had a marginal effect. They are subject to weather conditions and to who is on the ground to receive the actual aid. It is then a matter of luck as to how that aid is distributed. Often it is unfairly distributed, because the strongest end up grabbing the kit and taking it away with them. That is why the preferred mechanism is to get permission to go through the various checkpoints and deliver the aid by truck.[Official Report, 9 March 2016, Vol. 607, c. 2MC.]
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
May I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), who has done a lot of work on this issue over the past few months—and, indeed, over many years in her previous incarnation—and to the Minister, who has done an awful lot of work in the region? We have spoken a lot about the pressures that the Russians have brought to bear on the legitimate opposition to the Assad regime. Could he also tell us about the pressures they have brought to bear on our allies in the region, and what he is doing, working with the Lebanese, the Iraqis, the Jordanians and, indeed, the Turks, to ensure that we deliver a peaceful solution for Syria, not a wasteland made by Russian bombs?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right to mention the impact that the situation in Syria is having on its neighbours. We should all pay tribute to the generosity of countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, which have taken in so many refugees. The whole House will appreciate and support the fact that much of the funds we provide are going to those other countries as well.
One of the major changes that took place at the Syrian conference was that to employment opportunities for Syrian refugees so that they are not a burden on domestic employment situations. That happened partly because of the funding that is coming through and the opportunities being created by other countries. We are doing our best to make sure that Turkey plays its role—which is complicated, given its relationship with the Kurds—in moderating its actions and making sure that the cessation of hostilities lasts.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Russia’s aggression and flagrant violations of international law in a number of areas have strained and limited bilateral relations over recent years, and yet the Government say that they are urging Russia to play a more constructive role in the Syria conflict. Will the Minister outline the ways in which the Government have contact with the Russian Federation at present?
Mr Ellwood
I travelled with the hon. Gentleman on a visit to Kiev a couple of years ago, so I am familiar with his knowledge and understanding of and interest in these matters. It is important to recognise that. There are a series of opportunities when the international community comes together, and Foreign Minister Lavrov, John Kerry and our Foreign Secretary are now able to meet on a regular drumbeat. The International Syria Support Group is one such opportunity and it will meet later in March. There are also counter-ISIL coalition conferences, the most recent of which took place in Rome, and the Munich security conference includes not only public statements, but private bilateral opportunities. The most recent conference was different, however, because it was important to recognise the involvement of President Putin and President Obama. That is why I think the world was hoping that the outcome would be more optimistic.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I, too, want to pay tribute to my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), for continuing to bring to this Chamber the plight of the Syrian people. All sides must respect the ceasefire. What discussions has the Minister had with the Turkish Government about reports that Turkish forces have been shelling Syrian Kurds?
Mr Ellwood
I am aware of those reports and we have encouraged Turkey to recognise the importance of the cessation of hostilities and the opportunity it gives for further political engagement, which will itself be an opportunity to solve some of the problems that Turkey is enduring. We do not want people compounding the problem by taking advantage of the cessation of hostilities in order to gain ground, so we have been working with Turkey to encourage it to recognise the cessation of hostilities.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) have brought to the attention of this House serious offences to human dignity. The people of Syria must know that we see what is happening to them. The Minister has previously indicated that the international community is working to a timetable. Could he update us on that?
Mr Ellwood
It is for Staffan de Mistura to bring the parties together and they will recommence their discussions on 7 March. It is not my timetable. It was first agreed at the Vienna talks as a tentative idea for an 18-month transition programme. We need to recognise, however, that that was prior to the Russian bombings, which unfortunately led to the January talks falling apart. I hope there will still be a programme of transition in 18 months, but it is for the UN-led talks to confirm whether it is still on track.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The most credible and consistently effective ground forces against Daesh in both Syria and Iraq are our friends the Kurds, and yet time and again our NATO ally Turkey uses any excuse, including the present ceasefire, to attack and degrade them. When will Her Majesty’s Government take this issue seriously, call in the Turkish ambassador and say that that behaviour is simply not acceptable on any level, that we will not be able to defeat Daesh in Syria and Iraq without the Kurds, and that Turkey needs seriously to think again?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend articulates the complexity of the challenge we face in Syria, with so many moving parts, organisations and entities pursuing separate agendas, which makes it very difficult indeed. The situation between Turkey and the PKK—which is a listed terrorist group, including from a British perspective—is recognised by this House, and we encourage Turkey to recognise and honour the cessation of hostilities. I join my hon. Friend in recognising the incredible work that the Kurds in Iraq have done in order to hold back Daesh and liberate territory. They will play a pivotal role in the eventual liberation of Mosul, which will be significant for Iraq to move on to a new chapter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) as well. Last week the Defence Committee visited the middle east, where all our discussions focused on Syria and how to bring about a peace process and agreement. We welcome the current peace agreement, but the issue of Turkey came up in each of the countries we visited. Its position is to destabilise the situation in the middle east. It has a truly hedonistic attitude and some very strange bedfellows, both politically and militarily. What discussions have taken place with Turkey to ensure that it stops buying oil from Daesh-controlled territories and selling it for them, and that it stops attacking coalition forces? If it wants to be part of the coalition, we need its help.
Mr Ellwood
I can confirm that Turkey does not purchase oil from Daesh. Black market oil is moved along the porous border—there is no doubt about that—and every effort is made, including by Turkey, to make sure that that is cut down. We should not forget that only a few weeks ago Daesh committed a terrible attack in Istanbul, so Turkey is as committed as everybody else to participating in the coalition’s efforts to defeat Daesh.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
After five years of death and destruction, I welcome the fact that there is finally a ceasefire and some hope for the future. Given the extent of the war crimes and the brutality that have marked out the war, can the Minister reassure me that an individual’s involvement in the transitional process will not give them immunity from later facing justice?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and efforts are being made to ensure that all war crimes are collated. That will not be forgotten, and we will be returning to the subject in a serious way once the cessation of hostilities has moved forward.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister is right to say that the statement by the International Syria Support Group is welcome. However, the actions of the Russians rather fly in the face of that, because they are signing up to a transition plan at the same time as bolstering the Assad regime. Can the Minister tell us the extent to which he believes that the Russians understand the level of transition that is required, and whether they recognise that the Assad regime needs to come to an end if Syria is to have a peaceful future?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about making sure that there is a verification process in place. We are doing our part in making sure that we pass information on to the United Nations. A report will go to the Secretary-General of the UN in 15 days, and at 30-day intervals after that, confirming the situation of the cessation of hostilities and any breaches that occur. It is important for the United Kingdom, America and other countries to keep the pressure on Russia to make sure that it recognises its unique position in ensuring that the cessation is honoured, so that we can expedite the political process and alleviate the humanitarian situation.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
If the cessation of hostilities holds, and continues to hold, will my hon. Friend explain what impact he thinks it will have on the flow of displaced people within Syria, and on Syrian refugees? Can he elaborate—this may be a little premature—on the role that Britain could play in making sure that Syrian refugees can return home?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for the question, because it allows me to speak about the success of the Syrian conference that took place a couple of weeks ago in London. In a single day, we gained a record amount of pledges—$11 billion—from across the world. That is important in ensuring that the Syrian people recognise that the international community is ready to support them. Once they see that the cessation of hostilities is likely to last and that a political transition is likely to take place, they will make the decision not to turn their back on their own country—not to flee their country to try to find a better life in Europe.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The right to unimpeded humanitarian aid is set out in international law, but, as the Minister has pointed out, whether convoys even leave depends on the assessment of the situation of the ground and, in some cases, on the assessment of the Assad regime. Can the Minister assure me that he will express to both the Assad regime and the Russians the high importance that the international community places on dealing with this urgent humanitarian crisis in the next few weeks?
Mr Ellwood
I am happy to do so, and that can be articulated through the UN special envoy Staffan de Mistura at the talks that will recommence on 7 March.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
May I draw the Minister’s attention to the reports from the very few international journalists on the ground in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria that many people, particularly the rebels who are fighting against the regime, are not in favour of the ceasefire precisely because they believe that the regime and Russia will use it to take ground by stealth? That only emphasises the importance of getting aid into those communities and holding the regime to account.
May I take this opportunity to make a request of the Minister and the Government? As we have moved into territory previously held by Daesh, we have discovered at least 35 mass graves in those communities. The UK is a world leader in forensic technology and specialists, and many groups such as the Aegis Trust would like the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development to fund and encourage those forensic experts to get on the ground, where it is safe to do so, and uncover and record the terrible crimes of Daesh and the Syrian regime.
Mr Ellwood
I will answer just the latter point, for brevity. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we pay tribute to the British capability, which I have seen with my own eyes in places such as Srebrenica. It is important that we gain the intelligence that is needed to hold these people to account, so that the verification processes actually take place. That can only be done, as we saw in Ramadi, once the area has been made safe from all the booby traps. That work is commencing as we speak.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
May I say that the Minister has comported himself well at the Dispatch Box today? If there is no cessation of violence in this instance, is there a plan B?
Mr Ellwood
I think it is best to avoid discussion of a plan B. We need to make this work, because the situation has gone on for too long. I began by saying that we are now in our sixth year. There is a recognition that the international community is coming together around the table for the first time. We have not previously had a situation in which Iran and Saudi Arabia—and, indeed, Russia and the United States—have been at the table. We are facing a number of difficulties and complexities, but that should not mean that we do not try to find solutions for the stability of Syria in the longer term.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Speaker, a dydd gwyl Dewi hapus iawn i chi. Happy St David’s day. Yesterday, Reuters reported that two weeks ago in Brussels, Defence Ministers in the US-led coalition met to discuss ground operations against Daesh. Will the Minister update the House on those negotiations?
Mr Ellwood
Huge success has been achieved and huge progress made in Iraq. We were able to create an indigenous capability. We were able to support and build an Iraqi force, which was able to liberate Ramadi. The next step will be the liberation of Mosul. The work that the Peshmerga is now doing—again, with British assistance—is going well. We are stopping the movement of funding to Daesh as well. Daesh is being squeezed. The consequence of that, which we should be concerned about, is that as we squeeze Daesh in Iraq and Syria, it is starting to pop up in other parts of the world, not least in Libya. We need to be aware of that.
Points of Order
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are the foremost guardian of the convention that the House of Commons must come first. My hon. Friend the Minister is a most charming and able Minister, but I have asked him why the Foreign Secretary is not here. I quite understand—he is a very busy man—if he is abroad or ill, but surely we must establish the convention that when there is an urgent question or a statement, unless it deals with a particular, small part of a Department, the Secretary of State should be here. I would hope that you make that clear to Departments.
Mr Speaker
I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the position is that it is for the Government to decide whom to field. My responsibility is to adjudicate upon applications for permission to put urgent questions. I do that every week, and sometimes several times a week. I cannot require any particular Minister to attend, and it must remain for the Government to make the judgment.
That said, the hon. Gentleman is a very senior and respected figure in this House, and he has just made a point that increasingly I have heard made recently by others. I have not made a statistical study, but there are suggestions that the frequency with which senior Ministers appear to answer urgent questions is declining. It is in no sense to cast an aspersion on the Minister, who knows his brief and has assiduously attended to the matters raised today, simply to note that point in passing. I would hope that senior Ministers wanted, and felt a duty, to answer questions from Members of Parliament. We do not have a separation of powers, as in the United States; Ministers sit in, and are answerable to, this House. None, frankly, should ever forget it.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Happy St David’s day. Yesterday, in a majestic performance at the Dispatch Box, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General confirmed to the House that Cabinet Ministers who oppose the European Union and support a no vote in the referendum can get access to Government documents on the EU referendum if they use the Freedom of Information Act. Today, we read on the front page of the Daily Mail that the Paymaster General is going to scrap the commission looking at the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Speaker, have you had notice from the Paymaster General that he is seeking to make a statement to the House to explain the very unusual behaviour of the Government in shelving their own commission?
Mr Speaker
I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that I have received no such indication that any Minister has any such intention. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter of ongoing interest. He and others, who are notably terrier-like and indefatigable in pursuit of their ends, will require no encouragement from me to deploy such parliamentary devices as are available to secure the matter further attention, if that is what they want.
If there are no further points of order—the House’s palate has been satisfied on that front, at any rate for today—we can move to the presentation of a Bill.
Mr Speaker
For the benefit of those who attend to our proceedings, the convention is that a Minister nods and I note that, with some ceremony, we have received the due nod from the Minister for Security.
Bill Presented
Investigatory Powers Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Theresa May, the Prime Minister, Secretary Philip Hammond, Secretary Michael Fallon, Secretary David Mundell, Secretary Theresa Villiers, the Attorney General, Robert Buckland and Mr John Hayes presented a Bill to make provision about the interception of communications, equipment interference and the acquisition and retention of communications data, bulk personal datasets and other information; to make provision about the treatment of material held as a result of such interception, equipment interference or acquisition or retention; to establish the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and other Judicial Commissioners and make provision about them and other oversight arrangements; to make further provision about investigatory powers and national security; to amend sections 3 and 5 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 143) with explanatory notes (Bill 143-EN).
Devolution (Bank Holidays) (Wales)
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to devolve to Welsh Ministers responsibility for the determination of specified bank holidays in Wales; and for connected purposes.
I am lucky enough to be bringing this issue before the House on St David’s day, when people throughout Wales and the diaspora throughout the UK and indeed the world will be celebrating the life of Dewi Sant and our Welsh cultural identity. May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and everybody, dydd gwyl Dewi hapus—happy St David’s day?
St David or Dewi Sant is a renowned and inspirational figure in Wales. He was responsible for spreading Christianity throughout much of western Britain. He was the Archbishop of Wales, and was a fundamental figure in the establishment of religion in our country. He had particular links to my constituency, being the grandson of King Ceredig, the founder of the kingdom of Ceredigion, while his mother, Saint Non, was born in the village of Llanon. It is said that St David was educated at the Henfynyw monastery, near the village of Ffos-y-ffin, in the centre of Ceredigion. It was in the village of Llanddewi Brefi in 550 AD, at a raucous meeting of the synod of the Welsh church, that David, finding it difficult to make himself heard, placed a cloth on the ground and the earth rose to form a mound on which he could stand and preach. That miracle of St David put the village of Llanddewi Brefi on the map long before the contemporary Dafydd of “Little Britain” fame.
It should therefore be no surprise that the calls for making St David’s day a public holiday in Wales are particularly strong in my constituency. His contribution to Wales cannot and should not be ignored. Today, many people will publicly celebrate dydd Dewi Sant in my constituency and throughout Wales, with celebratory parades, school pupils wearing traditional Welsh costumes, the singing of Welsh songs and the recitation of poetry. People will take part in eisteddfodau and cymanfaoedd canu—singing festivals—displaying some of Wales’s rich cultural traditions. We will see celebrations of Welsh culture in London, with children from the London Welsh School, the London Welsh Centre and the Wales in London group doing their bit to promote Wales and the life of Dewi Sant. The St David’s day service in St Mary Undercroft ended a few moments ago, and I am glad to see that the House of Commons catering department has risen to the occasion by providing fabulous Welsh cuisine procured from Wales, which I would encourage all hon. Members to experience.
It is no coincidence that I am using this opportunity to pursue the issue of devolving the power to set public holidays on this very important day for Wales. The issue of St David’s day and the ability of Wales to designate public holidays has been raised many times over many years by many people from across the political spectrum. I raised it in a Westminster Hall debate in 2011, and that was followed in the same year by the introduction by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) of a Bill to make St George’s day and St David’s day public holidays in England and Wales respectively.
I want to make it clear that the Bill does not ask the House to authorise or designate St David’s day as a public holiday, however much I hope it will become one, but, in the spirit of devolution, to ensure that our Senedd—our Assembly—has the powers to decide that matter. Despite the numerous calls to devolve this power, that has not yet come to pass, unfortunately, despite the fact that responsibility for public holidays is devolved to Scotland and that St Patrick’s day has been a public holiday in Ireland since 1903. St Patrick’s day has been used to build Ireland’s profile and to encourage tourism, which has provided a huge boost to its economy.
The Irish Government specifically set up the St Patrick’s festival group, which has aimed to make the celebration one of the finest in the world, to encourage innovation and creativity, to provide the opportunity for those of Irish descent to become involved and to project a positive, forward-looking image of Ireland to the rest of the world. Should such a power be devolved and should the Welsh Government make St David’s day a public holiday, there is every reason to believe that our national festival could be very proactively marketed throughout the world in a more robust way than it has been to date. It would provide a fantastic opportunity for a small country such as ours to make its mark, and it seems preposterous to me that the Senedd cannot make such a decision.
I acknowledge that there have been some concerns from parts of the business community about the possible designation of St David’s day as a public holiday, but that should not stop us giving the responsibility to Wales for the Welsh Government to consult on it and come to a considered decision. We could follow the precedent of Scotland. St Andrew’s day was designated a bank holiday by the Scottish Parliament in the St Andrew’s Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Act 2007. At the time, concerns were raised about the possible negative impact that devolving the power would have on businesses and the Scottish economy, but they seem to have been unfounded. It would be a very strange state of affairs if anybody called for that to be reversed. After consultation, the Scottish Government chose to allow banks to decide whether to close on St Andrew’s day and companies to decide whether to observe it as a public holiday. There has since been growing calls and growing support for companies to recognise the holiday fully. Critically, that decision was taken in Scotland.
In Wales, we have similar levels of support for creating a new public holiday. A poll taken at the time of the Scottish decision showed that 87% of people in Wales wanted St David’s day to become a bank holiday. Some 65% of those surveyed stated that they were willing to sacrifice another bank holiday to see St David’s day officially designated. Indeed, my thanks should go to ITV Wales, which in highlighting the Bill has undertaken an online poll. As of 10 o’clock this morning, over 90% of respondents agree that St David’s day should be a bank holiday.
Such support is also seen in all of the parties in the National Assembly, many of whom made manifesto commitments to have the power devolved, and others who provided evidence to the Silk commission called for the power to be given to the Senedd. From the very beginning of the life of the National Assembly, Welsh political opinion, as well as growing public opinion, has been united in its call for St David’s day to become a public holiday.
In 2011, it looked as though the UK Government might finally, as part of their tourism strategy—after pressure, I would candidly suggest, from the Liberal Democrats—consider giving the Welsh Assembly the power to move the spring bank holiday from early May to 1 March. However, nothing came of that, despite great political support for it in Wales. The Welsh Government wrote to the Wales Office in 2013 to call for the power to be devolved, but they were rebuffed, apparently by the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). Despite public and political support rivalling the support shown in Scotland, such calls have continued to fall on deaf ears, with successive UK Governments refusing to consider devolving the power to Wales.
If the power continues to be reserved to Westminster, it seems unlikely that St David’s day will become a public holiday any time soon, despite the huge support for that in our country. Is it not now time for the Welsh people to be able to decide whether it is right that St David’s day becomes a public holiday in Wales, rather than that being decided—and rejected—in Whitehall? With only eight public holidays in the UK and in Wales, we have among the fewest of any country in the world. Wales should be able to choose whether to create a new public holiday or to replace it with another. I feel that that decision should be made, through our Senedd, by the people of Wales.
Let me finish by repeating the words of Dewi Sant:
“Do the little things that you have seen me do and heard about. I will walk the path that our fathers have trod before us.”
“Do the little things” or “Gwnewch y pethau bychain” has become a well-known phrase in Wales, and this is all that many of us in Wales are asking for. We are asking for Wales to be given the power that others already have—the power for Wales to choose whether and how to make St David’s day a public holiday, and to celebrate his life and our Welsh national identity how we choose. With this Bill, we would be able to do those little things that could have a very big impact on Wales. I urge the House to support this call.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Mark Williams, Gerald Jones, Liz Saville Roberts, Hywel Williams, Jonathan Edwards, Huw Irranca-Davies, Albert Owen, John Pugh and Carolyn Harris present the Bill.
Mr Mark Williams accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March, and to be printed (Bill 145).
Estimates Day
Estimates 2015-16
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The FCO and the Spending Review 2015
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to open the first estimates day debate of the new Parliament, and I thank the Liaison Committee for selecting the first report of the Foreign Affairs Committee for debate.
I pay tribute to the work of the Committee in the last Parliament and to my predecessor, Sir Richard Ottaway. I was lucky to have him as a parliamentary neighbour for 18 years and can well understand why he was so widely regarded across the panoply of the Foreign Office establishment and those interested in foreign and Commonwealth affairs for the way in which he led the Committee in the last Parliament.
One of the Committee’s final reports in the last Parliament, which was published in February 2015 only weeks before Parliament was dissolved, took a detailed look at the impact of cuts on the Foreign Office budget resulting from the 2010 spending review. It accepted that the Foreign Office needed to play its part in the general retrenchment instigated by the review and believed that Foreign Office Ministers and senior managers had, on the whole, played a difficult hand skilfully. However, it concluded:
“The cuts imposed on the FCO since 2010 have been severe and have gone beyond just trimming fat: capacity now appears to be being damaged. The next Government needs to protect future FCO budgets under the next Spending Review…If further cuts are imposed, the UK’s diplomatic imprint and influence would probably reduce, and the Government would need to roll back some of its foreign policy objectives.”
I remind the House that the reduction imposed on the Foreign Office in the four-year period ending in March 2015 amounted to 24% of its resource budget. However, the majority of the savings came from what amounted to a conjuring trick. Funding for the BBC World Service was transferred from the Foreign Office to the licence fee payer from 1 April 2014. At a stroke, the Foreign Office’s apparent budget was reduced by £240 million and the cuts that it had to make to its own budget through savings amounted to just 10%.
Even though the real reduction was just 10% over the four years, it is hard to find anyone who does not believe that the FCO’s capacity was damaged in the process. Our predecessors described the Foreign Office as a machine stretched to the limit, with key posts left unfilled because staff of the necessary calibre were needed for more immediate crises; overseas posts at junior levels lost, reducing the opportunity for staff to accumulate the experience that is essential for service at higher levels within the organisation; and reductions in UK-based staff at many overseas posts, denying those who remained time to leave the diplomatic bubble and gather a sense of the real currents in society around the country in which they served.
Overall, the headcount of UK-based staff has reduced by 10% between 2011 and now, which seems perverse at a time when the Department has been under such policy pressure and suffered such overstretch. To some degree, the reduction in UK-based staff was mitigated by the recruitment of locally engaged staff who, in many cases, have brought a depth of local knowledge that it would be difficult for a London-based employee ever to acquire. However, many of them happen to be British people who are based overseas and then formally become locally engaged staff. Although the average cost of such people is one third of UK-based staff, it is not a straight saving, because such replacements do not come at zero cost. I have already heard troubling reports of unintended consequences arising from such things as locally engaged staff not being cleared to the same security level as UK-based staff.
To use Tunisia as an example in advance of the Committee’s visit to Cairo and Tunis next week, I applaud the FCO’s swift consular response to the terrorist attack in Sousse in June 2015, but I have heard that the subsequent counter-terrorism analysis was complicated by a lack of UK-based staff who were cleared to the necessary level. That analysis was of great significance, because it will have played a role in the FCO’s decision to advise against all but essential travel to the entire country—a country where tourism contributes directly and indirectly to a large proportion of GDP and is a major source of foreign currency. Tunisia is a fragile country that has undergone its fair share of volatility since it sparked the Arab spring, and we all have an interest in nurturing its continued stability.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for investing in our diplomatic service. Does he share my concern that the cuts are not only leading to a lack of spread across the world and impacting on the standing of the United Kingdom globally, but affecting the expertise and analytical capabilities of the diplomatic service in respect of the information it feeds back to the United Kingdom?
Crispin Blunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have made that point before and will make it again in respect of the inquiry we are conducting into the intervention in Libya. Just how deep was the knowledge on the basis of which we decided to intervene? It is the depth of knowledge that has been lost.
Another price that is being paid is that locally engaged staff do not really understand the UK context. It has been put to me that the quality of the reports that are coming through is not quite what it was because they are not addressed to the needs of the Ministers at whom they are aimed. The difficulty is that very overstretched UK-based staff in a post are, in addition, having to oversee the work of the locally engaged employees.
Returning to the issue of Tunisia, I accept that the security of our citizens must be a Government priority and that they cannot commend travel unless they have confidence that our citizens will be reasonably safe, but this decision had serious consequences for Tunisia’s stability and the security of the region. We must therefore be completely confident that we can make informed decisions, rather than simply defensive decisions because of an absence of capability.
Reports are, of course, the standard mechanism by which Select Committees express their views. I believe that Committees can miss opportunities by not getting inside the decision making cycle, or by devoting our energies to conducting retrospective analyses after policy has been formed and executed. The Government should welcome input at an early stage from an informed, cross-party Committee that could make practical, forward-looking suggestions, rather than just telling the Government where they went wrong.
We published our report on the Budget in October last year, almost exactly a month before the spending review, and we made just one recommendation:
“We recommend that the Treasury protect the FCO budget for the period covered by the 2015 Spending Review, with a view to increasing rather than cutting the funds available to support the diplomatic work on which the country’s security and prosperity depend.”
I am delighted that our recommendations were accepted, and that the settlement reflected our central recommendation.
We spent much of our first few evidence sessions looking at how the Foreign Office was preparing for the spending review, and at what scope there was for it to absorb further cuts of the scale already imposed over the previous four years. The Foreign Secretary gave oral evidence twice, and we tried to get a sense of his priorities and what he would seek to preserve. We then took evidence from Sir Simon McDonald, the new permanent under-secretary, and his senior management team, to try to understand the grit and detail of what might be achieved and how if—God forbid—savings of 25% or even 40% were required. That gloomy environment perhaps reflected our rather defensive recommendation, which was obviously designed to hold the current position, but the Committee clearly believes that more resources are needed to support our diplomacy.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
As a member of the previous Foreign Affairs Committee, may I suggest that trying to make unnecessary savings can prove to be a false economy in the longer term? If we do not invest in expertise and analytical skills, we could end up making errors that can cost a lot more than if we had a proper view of things in the first place. The extreme example of that is avoiding conflict, which is much cheaper than conflict itself.
Crispin Blunt
My hon. Friend makes an entirely valid point. He sat on the Committee in the last Parliament and in this one, and he will know about the diminution of our expertise, for example on Russia. When he and I were soldiers back in the 1980s there was a wealth of expertise about the Soviet Union, but that has simply been stripped away. When faced with a crisis in Crimea and Ukraine, the level and depth of our knowledge were certainly a handicap.
When looking at future Committee reports and how we might influence future events, I hope that we will be able to report with authority and fulfil a much requested public need about Brexit. The Committee is conducting an inquiry into the costs and benefits of European Union membership for Britain’s role in the world—whether we stay in the EU or whether we leave. Hon. Members will already have found that people are asking where they can turn for independent analysis and who will give them the facts. Unhappily, the Government have placed themselves in a position where they are unable to give an independent view, since the entire institution is placed firmly on one side of the campaign. Happily, however, I preside over a Committee of 11, and the publicly expressed views of my Committee are balanced at five each on either side of the question.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If my hon. Friend is seeking a cure for insomnia, may I refer him to my speech on Friday when I spoke on this subject for an hour in support of the Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), which would set up an independent audit of the pros and cons of leaving the EU? That is what we need. Perhaps the Office for Budget Responsibility should be given that job. We accused the Labour Government of fiddling the figures before the Budget, so why not ask an independent body to give a genuine audit?
Crispin Blunt
My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that that is precisely what my Committee will try to do. Given the way that we are exquisitely balanced, my aim, which is informally supported in discussion by members of the Committee—they cannot be formally bound until the Committee reports, but we all share the objective—is to produce as balanced a piece of work as possible, identifying the factors that the electorate should consider on both sides of the question, but without advising the electorate what weight they should attach to those factors. I hope to complete that work about two months before the referendum, and for the Committee to do a service to the wider public of exactly the type that my hon. Friend identifies, as well as to this House and the reputation of its Committees.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the public are keen that his Committee, and others, re-establish the Committees on Arms Exports Controls? Will he explain why that has not happened yet?
Crispin Blunt
It has, and I have already attended that Committee’s first meeting. It is being excellently chaired by the hon. Gentleman—I forget his constituency, which will not help me much, but I have every confidence in the new Chair of that Committee, and when I recall his constituency, I will inform the House.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I will get my hon. Friend out of that hole by intervening on him. I pay tribute to his chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he is correct to say that we are split five-five on whether we want the United Kingdom to pull out of or remain in the European Union. He is right to ensure that the report is balanced and that we do not come out for either side. A lot of my constituents want more impartial information so that they can make their own critical assessment on this matter.
Crispin Blunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I recall that it is my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), who served on the previous Committees on Arms Export Controls under the Stakhanovite chairmanship of Sir John Stanley, who is taking up that role. I am confident that he will do it extremely well.
Hon. Members will know that if I can chair a Committee that produces a unanimous report and has the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) agreeing on factors around our European Union membership, we will have done a singular service in producing a piece of analysis that everyone can have confidence in.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and I look forward to working with him in trying to bring the five of us on either side of the argument together to produce that report. Does he agree that one of our primary goals is to ensure that people in the House, and beyond, are as well informed as they possibly can be about the European Union referendum ahead of 23 June?
Crispin Blunt
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we look forward with interest to the motivation of the Scottish National party, and how it will vote, given its differing attitudes to the differing Unions in which Scotland finds itself.
Anyone attending this debate might ask why, if the Foreign Office was one of the winners from the spending review—or at least not a loser—we have sought this debate. My reply is that no one should underestimate the scale of the challenges that the UK and its allies are facing in the world today. Even with a protected budget, the Foreign Office will struggle to address those challenges. Of course we have a range of capabilities to deal with direct threats to our national security, including armed forces, diplomacy, economic policy, cyber-operations, and covert means, but in terms of sheer value for money, it is diplomacy, and the capacity to bring crises to a peaceful resolution in partnership with others, that must be the preferred solution. A diplomatic solution to a crisis, rather than one that descends into the use of armed force saves an absolute fortune, as well as avoiding the huge humanitarian cost that accompanies a failure to preserve the peace. It is my view that we should increase the Foreign Office budget to enhance that capacity and help to head off crises before they flare up.
The threats to the UK’s security and wellbeing are at an unprecedented level. As we said in our report, we cannot recall a more complex and challenging policy-making environment in recent decades—an environment that includes Syria, Daesh, Libya, Russia, the South China sea, Israel, Palestine, North Korea, Iran and Turkey, to name but a few.
That is before we take into account the requirements of the other two pillars of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: the agenda for prosperity and consular services. In its response to our report, the Office acknowledges that there will be
“new work, including increasing spending on the Overseas Territories and hosting the presidency of the EU in 2017.”
That might be an interesting presidency if we are on the way out after 23 June.
Inexplicably, however, the Government’s response says nothing about potentially the greatest call on its resources: a British exit from the European Union. If the country votes out on 23 June, a huge effort will be needed to disentangle the United Kingdom from its existing commitments and to work on new trade arrangements, to name but one element of the work that will need to be undertaken. A very large part of that effort will fall on the Foreign Office, yet the Committee has found little or no evidence that the British civil service is making any sort of contingency plan in the event of a Brexit. We now have a date for the referendum, and Brexit is not a remote possibility but a very real prospect in the hands of the electorate and the competing campaigns. I therefore urge Ministers and their officials to begin planning, and not just in outline, for the consequences of a decision by the British people to leave the European Union. It would not just be a question of drafting in a few extra people to prepare new treaties. We will need to strengthen our bilateral relationships by increasing our presence in larger EU member states, reopening subordinate posts that have been closed or downgraded over the last five years, and picking up capabilities, particularly trade capabilities, that are currently the competence of the European Union. We should at least understand what the bill will be and prepare to address it if it happens.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about increasing the number of personnel to deal with Brexit, the Committee recently said that about a quarter of staff in the middle east, eastern Europe and central Asia do not have the requisite language skills, and that the number of people who have those language skills is decreasing. That is another way in which the strength of the Foreign Office to deal with international issues is being reduced.
Crispin Blunt
The hon. Lady is absolutely right—she understands those issues extremely well from her work on the Foreign Affairs Committee and more widely before joining it. That loss of language skills is partly a reflection of just how stretched the FCO is in getting people to the right place, and getting the best people into vacancies to cover the policy challenges we face. An office that is not stretched so tautly has the capacity to get the language skills of its staff up to the necessary standard. Until now, those skills have been the envy of every other diplomatic service in the world. In the last Parliament, it was the priority of William Hague as Foreign Secretary to address that. Serious measures were put in place to try to do so, but the evidence the Committee is taking shows that if it is getting better, it is doing so in a minute way that does not reflect the need for real improvement. That reflects just how tautly the office is being managed under the current budget conditions.
There will be more pressure on the capital budget than usual. The Government response to our report points out that the Foreign Office capital budget will remain “flat”. It says that the FCO will need to fund requirements that cannot be met from the capital budget by disposing of assets, and warns that it may need to call on the Treasury reserve for some large projects. The Foreign Office quite rightly is expected to achieve value for money when disposing of assets, but the ability to do so will partly depend on market forces. As we know from the FCO supplementary estimate, it has already had to call on the Treasury reserve to cover a shortfall that it says is
“due to adverse market conditions in the Far East”.
The FCO IT system, Firecrest, is failing and presents a serious operational risk. Major investment is needed, but that has been stalled during the spending review process. The FCO is going to have to fund its tech overhaul programme from its existing budget: difficult choices will have to be made on procurement, bearing in mind the need for resilience and the particular security requirements of the Department. Careful project management will be needed, and I can only point out that the whole of the public service does not exactly have a shining record in that field. I hope the Foreign Office can help to redress that.
My second key point concerns official development assistance expenditure and the need to rationalise resource allocation. The Committee highlights in the report our uneasiness at the consequences of depending ever more on expenditure that qualifies as official development assistance, and which therefore scores against the Government’s commitment to invest at least 0.7% of gross national income in international development. That risks, and indeed is, skewing the Department’s expenditure away from countries that are not eligible for ODA spending, regardless of where our foreign policy interests lie. For instance, 97% of the funds available under the new human rights funding programme, the Magna Carta fund, are for spending in ODA-eligible countries. When we queried that in oral evidence with the Minister and her officials, we were given the impression that there was some flexibility to divert funding towards non-ODA countries, but we need clear answers. Trying to replace the significant sums the Government have put forward for human rights in the Magna Carta fund with very constrained bilateral funds will not wash. It would be quite unacceptable and counterproductive for human rights programme funding to be virtually denied in non-ODA-eligible countries such as Russia and Israel, and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. I hope the Minister can give me some reassurance on that point.
Human rights expenditure is not the only example of how ODA eligibility can determine the Foreign Office’s activities. The current chief operating officer, Deborah Bronnert, told us that the Foreign Office’s non-ODA budget was under particular pressure, and that if there were to be cutbacks in the overseas network, it would have to look first at cutbacks in subordinate posts in developed countries. It hardly plays well with our prosperity agenda if that is where we need to go in terms of our trade and economic relations.
The British Council, which plays a unique role in promoting an understanding by different peoples and nations of what the UK can offer, faces the possibility of losing all grant in aid for work in countries that are not ODA-eligible. It is looking to cross-subsidise to some extent from other areas of its operation, but the net effect is a decline of our soft power and influence in several growing economies and countries, not least where there are political and human rights concerns.
I have similar concerns about the move within the Government to more pooled funding between Departments. The conflict, stability and security fund, which is currently worth £1.033 billion per year, will increase to £1.33 billion by 2019-20, and a new prosperity fund is being created, worth £1.3 billion. Substantial sums of money have been allocated following a process of negotiation between Departments, and I welcome the concept of a more holistic and integrated approach to funding where Departments are working in different ways towards the same ultimate aims, but the Committee should look carefully at how the FCO fares, for instance when sharing the conflict, stability and security fund with two Departments whose budgets as a proportion of total Government expenditure are both protected.
Finally, the Foreign Office delayed its response to our report until it had received its settlement letter from the Treasury, but I was disappointed that the FCO did not supply the settlement letter, which I understand sets out more detail of the sums available to the Foreign Office from year to year within the period covered by the spending review. In fact, none of the departmental settlement letters has been published. At the moment, we just have rounded figures for budgets for 2015-16 to 2019-20, without any lower-level detail. Will the Minister therefore undertake to supply the Foreign Office settlement letter to the Committee, so that we may publish it and place that essential information in the public domain?
My conclusion relates to the shape of the Foreign Office in the years to come. In his letter responding to our report, the Foreign Secretary said:
“There is more that can be done to strengthen the FCO and build up its world class capabilities. To help achieve this, I have commissioned an internal review of the FCO exploring how we can be more expert, agile and focused on our key priorities. The review will set out a vision of the organisation the FCO should be by 2020.”
I invite the Minister to tell us a little more about that review. Will it be a fundamental review of how the Foreign Office is structured, how priorities are ordered and how staff are deployed; or will it be a motherhood and apple pie statement of vision and aims, full of things no one could disagree with?
In conclusion, the Office remains overstretched and underfunded for the tasks it faces. Its actual funding base is dysfunctional, and if it does not actually distort policy decisions, it certainly means that resource allocation is no longer aligned with actual British interests.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am going to do something very unusual, very different and possibly subversive here today with this speech. On one of the days set aside for the consideration of the estimates of this House, I am going to actually speak about estimates. When I was researching my contribution, the one thing I was told that I must not do was to raise the issue of estimates during estimates day debates. What other House in the world would have such an absurd principle of debate? What other modern Parliament would even start to consider doing its business on the basis of such an absurd and ridiculous ruling?
Estimates are not about the allocation of pencils and rulers to the civil service, or even the price of beer in Strangers Bar. The estimates process is this House having to give its authority to the Government’s spending plans. This is what we are doing, in accordance with Standing Order No. 54 of this House, in the three days that we have been given to debate the three large estimates documents I have here. However, they are the one thing we are not supposed to debate! This is absolutely and utterly absurd and bizarre, and it has to change. This cannot go on. Something as important as this has to be considered.
How did we get here? Two centuries ago, the House actually debated and considered every single estimate in the House. Every piece of departmental spend was debated to the nth degree, considered and voted on. Now, we do absolutely nothing. This House has abrogated its responsibility for looking at departmental spend, and that is utterly unsustainable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman try to fit his more general point about estimates into the specific estimate on Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure we are debating?
Pete Wishart
Well, the estimates are the estimates, Madam Deputy Speaker. I struggle to think that when we talk about the estimates, the totality of the Foreign Office budget would fit into what we are actually debating and considering. This is a day set aside for the consideration of estimates. We have to debate this. We are abrogating our responsibilities as parliamentarians if we fail to have some sort of say and some sort of discussion and debate about how this House does its business.
Sir Edward Leigh
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a most important point. When I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—I am now a member of the Procedure Committee— I produced a report for the Chancellor on this. What the hon. Gentleman says is quite true and he is doing a great service to the House. The fact is that we spend £600 billion of the people’s money every year, but the one thing we are not allowed to talk about on estimates days is estimates. The hon. Gentleman is therefore making a fundamentally important point. When the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) tried to talk about estimates on an estimates day a couple of years ago, unbelievably he was ruled out of order. You have the power now, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say that on estimates days we are allowed to talk about estimates. You can give the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) authority to carry on giving his speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, but we are debating a specific motion on the Order Paper, which is Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimates. The hon. Gentleman has been a parliamentarian for a very long time. He understands how this works and he may feel that this is an injustice. There are other places where this can be debated, but today this is specifically about a very important estimate, which is the expenditure of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
There are plenty of ways in which the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) can debate estimates more generally within this framework, but he must stick to what is on the Order Paper. We are debating a motion and it is very specifically on FCO expenditure. If he can do that, he will not be ruled out of order. If he does not, then I am afraid he will be.
Pete Wishart
I will make an attempt to stay in order, Madam Deputy Speaker. According to Standing Order No. 54, three days of each parliamentary session is to be allocated for the consideration of estimates. I am attempting to uphold that Standing Order. One of the days on which we are allowed to debate estimates is today. I therefore seek your ruling as to why I cannot debate the estimates on one of the days set aside for estimates.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The answer, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that this is not a general debate on estimates. This debate is on one particular estimate relating to FCO expenditure. That is, therefore, what we are debating here today. He also knows that the Procedure Committee is the place to go to for answers to more specific questions. There are other ways to have debates on the principle of estimates debates. Today, however, we have on the Order Paper the specific estimate for the FCO. That is what we are here to debate.
Sir Edward Leigh
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I just ask how I, or any other hon. Member, can question the Government on £600 billion of expenditure? By the way, under the Barnett formula what we spend directly affects the spend in Scotland. How can I start giving a speech about all this money we are spending?
Madam Deputy Speaker
As the hon. Gentleman knows—he has been here a very long time—there are Treasury questions, Budget day, parliamentary questions, letters to Ministers, Adjournment debates and so on. There are any number of avenues by which these matters can be debated. Today, we are debating Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure on this particular estimates day.
With that, I think that is enough. If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire wants me to rule him out of order I can do so, but if he can just stick to the FCO expenditure and bring his points in under that he will remain in order.
Pete Wishart
I will give it one last bash, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let us hope we can make a little bit more progress. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is absolutely right. This House has to be given the opportunity to debate this. It is critically and crucially important. If we cannot do it on days set aside for estimates, we have to determine when and how we can do it. If I can just explain why this is important, you can rule me out of order all you want, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This is important for us in the Scottish National party because we have been invited by the Government, by the Leader of the House, to investigate, debate and look at the estimates process to determine the issues around Barnett consequentials, which you and Mr Speaker have to rule—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that is enough. I think we have had the debate. The hon. Gentleman has had a debate on the Floor of the House about estimates in general, but we are debating, scrutinising and looking at a very important particular estimate on Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman can keep his debating points to that matter, I will allow him to continue; otherwise, he will be out of order. It is a particular estimate day, not estimates day. It is a particular day on which we are debating FCO estimates. If he would like to continue I will allow him to do so; otherwise, I will call the next speaker.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
There is an old Army adage, which has served the British Army well, that says time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted. I suggest that it could serve the Government well going forward when it comes to expenditure on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Cuts to the Office by previous Governments on both sides of the House have led to staff shortages, which have contributed to a series of errors that have cost us dear. On the one hand, I congratulate the Government on protecting the budget in real terms; that is a backstop we have not had hitherto and is very much to be welcomed. At the same time, I urge the Government to look to increase the budget in real terms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) has eloquently suggested. If the Government seriously think that cost savings in this area work, I would suggest that all the evidence shows that to be a false economy indeed, and for a variety of reasons.
First and foremost, the false economy does not reflect the importance of how we make foreign policy in this country. That is in contrast to the United States, where foreign policy making is much more of a diffuse process, with academics, career diplomats, think-tanks and politicians all much more widely involved. In this country, on the other hand, the pyramid is much narrower and policy making is structured and put into place by a smaller number of people and organisations—primarily senior people at the top of the FCO, senior people at No. 10 and perhaps a few others. It is therefore terribly important that all the components of our foreign policy making are firing on all cylinders, because if a particular part is not working, given the smaller number of components in the process, that can have a disproportionate effect on overall policy and its consequences.
There is no shortage of examples showing that we have not done as well as we should have in responding to international crises and other incidents that have perhaps left us floundering. With the Arab spring, for example, there were so few Arabists in the FCO that we had to call them out of retirement. When it came to Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, for another example, I think I am right in saying—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will correct me if he so wishes—that we did not have one Kremlinologist in the FCO, which perhaps contributed to the somewhat unconvincing response. I suggest to the Government that our interventions over the last 12 years or so have suffered from a lack of analytical skill and expertise, which has been very costly to this country.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman has a long track record on these issues, and I am particularly grateful for his work in the Foreign Affairs Committee. He will probably be more gentle on the Government than I will. If we look at Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, among other places, the lack of proper interrogation of the facts has been a disaster.
Mr Baron
I made the mistake of not finishing my sentence; next time I will finish it. I was about to say that my examples included Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and, I would suggest, Syria. In Iraq, there can be no doubt that we went to war on a false premise: there were no WMD. We were all deceived; the job of Chilcot is to determine whether No. 10 intentionally deceived us.
On Afghanistan, I supported the initial deployment in 2001 to rid the country of al-Qaeda, and there is strong evidence to suggest that we succeeded in that objective in the very early years. Where it went disastrously wrong—this takes us back to the fact that we did not fully understand events on the ground—was when we allowed the mission to morph into nation-building. We went into Helmand without fully realising what it involved, and we certainly under-resourced our operations, which was a bad mistake.
In Libya, we knocked down the door—that was the relatively easy bit—but the country has turned out to be a complete and utter shambles, in part because we failed to understand that the opposition to Gaddafi would splinter into 100-plus groups with different objectives. Law and order has been non-existent in Libya ever since, which has led to more bloodshed and a vicious civil war.
Daniel Kawczynski
At this juncture, with my hon. Friend referring to Libya, I must interject that he was the only Conservative Member of Parliament to speak out against that British military involvement at the time. If I recall correctly from his speeches from that time, he put some prescient and important questions to the Government, in respect of which hindsight has proved him to have been correct.
My hon. Friend referred to the small number of people who make foreign policy in this country. Does he agree that in advance of British military intervention overseas, as in the case of Libya, there might need to be in future a greater period of engagement and deliberation for those such as my hon. Friend who do not fully support such actions, so that these problems can be avoided?
Mr Baron
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Select Committee member for his kind words. I agree: there does need to be more time for reflection on these issues. I would also suggest that we need greater investment in the FCO. We need greater expertise and analytical skills because we need to make sure that we have analysed a situation correctly. Our system of government performs better when we have a well-informed Executive being questioned by the legislature.
What we have seen is a series of errors through which it has become increasingly evident that the Executive do not have that expertise to hand. That is one reason why the legislature has raised the bar on military intervention—because it has lacked the trust in the Executive to make their case, analyse a situation correctly and make sound recommendations. Once that trust is lost, the legislature will raise the bar when it comes to military intervention, as we have seen.
Let me return to some of the other errors that we have made. I suggest that there were errors in Syria. The Government line that we did not intervene early enough on behalf of the rebels, which accounts for the mess that is evident there now, is simply not correct. The Government’s intention was to arm the rebels in the hope that they could keep the weapons confined to the “good” rebels and not allow them to spread to the “bad” rebels—in other words, to track and trace the weapons. Anybody who knows anything about the region, or who has visited the country or travelled through it, should know that everything is tradeable in the bazaar. Also, given that the situation was so fast moving, the idea that we could have stopped the rebels from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda, al-Nusra or other extremists was pure make-believe.
Then, within a couple of years, the Government, having been stopped by the House from intervening in a key vote in 2013, again proposed to intervene—but against the rebels. I would not be so unkind as to suggest that we swapped sides in a civil war within two years, but to the general public, it damn well nearly looks like that. It well illustrates how we have failed to analyse the situation correctly.
In the brief time left to me, I would argue that in many respects our interventions have been a distraction. I, for one—like many Members on both sides; some are in their places today—have long advocated the need to spend more on defence. The military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indeed Syria have perhaps distracted us from the greater threat of nation states, not necessarily friendly to the west, re-arming and reasserting their power and influence. One thinks immediately of Russia and China, but there are others as well.
To those who suggest that the straits of Hormuz or the South China seas are far away and of little significance to us, I say that a country based to such an extent on maritime trade—about 90% of our trade comes by sea—would certainly know about it if those straits or seas were ever blocked. My suggestion is that we have been distracted and that that is partly a function of the fact that we are not investing enough in what I call our ears and eyes—in other words, our ability to understand what is happening out there.
We must have a margin of safety or comfort as regards our capability, because no one can confidently predict where the next trouble spot is going to be. History is littered with examples of our facing the wrong way. I suggest that without that margin of comfort, that margin of safety, in our analytical capability, we may well be caught short again if we have not made the necessary investment. I suggest that, without that investment, we make expensive mistakes—indeed, we have made them—and that it is therefore a false economy to talk about savings, particularly when the budget is so small relative to Government expenditure generally. If I may take the point to the extreme, avoiding unnecessary conflict is vastly cheaper than committing ourselves to conflict that is costly in terms of both lives and treasure.
We often talk about hard power in the House, but perhaps we do not talk enough about soft power, which is increasingly important. In the present information age, those who win the argument will be just as important as those who win the conflict. This is about a battle of ideas, a battle of ideologies. It is about persuading others to want what we want, rather than just rattling the sabre, which—as we have seen so many times in our recent history—can often be counterproductive. We do not attach enough importance to soft power in this country, certainly not when it comes to the making of foreign policy.
There are clear examples of our putting our soft power capability at risk. Past cuts to the BBC World Service have hindered our ability to reach out to people; the World Service budget has been transferred from the FCO’s ambit, but that was one example before the transfer.
An example that currently sits in the FCO is the British Council. That venerable organisation is doing tremendous work in spreading the word, encouraging people to want what we want, providing an educational service, and trying to bring peoples together to improve understanding for the benefit of all concerned, but what are we doing? We are making cuts there. What is the British Council having to do as a result? It is having to become even more commercial in trying to make up for those cuts.
Members may think that a 10% cut is very little, but given that 10% is sometimes the profit margin, the British Council must achieve a 100% increase in its revenue when engaging in commercial activities to make up for that cut. We, as a country, must think again about short-sightedness of that kind, because it is not serving us well—and, I would argue, not serving the international community well.
We need to ensure that our ears and eyes are working, because when they are not, we tend to make expensive mistakes in the world. The fact that we have not properly funded our analytical skills and our capabilities, and have not been as well-sighted as we should have been, has certainly contributed—although it has not been the only reason—to a series of errors that have proved exceedingly costly in lives first and foremost, but also in terms of treasure. That brings me back to the point about false economies. It is a false economy to make cuts in our ears and eyes—our Foreign and Commonwealth Office capabilities—if, as a result, we then blunder into interventions that cost us dearly in lives and treasure.
I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is present. Through him, I urge the Government to increase expenditure on the FCO in real terms. We will be better sighted for it, and will make fewer costly errors.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). He made a very detailed, perceptive and interesting speech, which l thoroughly enjoyed.
The cut in funding for the Foreign Office, on top of the 10% budget cut since 2010, is directly contrary to the United Kingdom’s key strategic interests, and might prevent the Department from effectively addressing serious organisational issues of its own. We cannot properly address the threats to our security from Daesh solely by dropping bombs in Syria, Libya or Iraq, and threats to our economy from events in China and in the eurozone cannot simply be washed away by the Treasury. We need to equip the FCO not just to meet the challenges of today, but to rise to the unknown challenges of tomorrow. There must be a renewed focus on aid and diplomacy in all that it does.
A recent Foreign Affairs Committee report, “The FCO and the 2015 Spending Review, stated:
“In an increasingly unstable world, the Government relies on the FCO to have the necessary infrastructure in place so that it can make critical decisions at a moment’s notice. Over the last Parliament the country was found to be lacking in expertise, analytical capability and language skills to manage the fallout from the Arab Spring and the crisis in Ukraine. In 2010 it might have been thought that expertise on Benghazi, Donetsk, or Raqqa was surplus to requirement. These have become vital areas for our national security, evidencing the real dangers of an under-funded Foreign and Commonwealth Office”.
Mr Baron
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points, and I would love to remain in the Chamber to listen to the rest of her speech. I promise that I will pursue it in Hansard afterwards. However, my Whips have very thoughtfully put me on to a Statutory Instrument Committee, so would she forgive me if I left her at this point?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. On this occasion, I shall forgive him.
The FCO must have the capacity to be able to extend further than the issues with which it currently deals from day to day. In a speech to the Institute for Government last year, the outgoing permanent under-secretary at the FCO, Sir Simon Fraser, supported the protection of UK aid spending and the 2% commitment to defence spending, but lamented the fact that the FCO’s relatively small budget would be unprotected in the coming spending review. He described the FCO as
“the glue that holds everything together”.
He said that the FCO’s budget arguably deserved protection similar to that given to the larger budgets of the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence, whose operations overseas would only stand to benefit from a strong FCO. That being said, the FCO clearly needs to reform its overseas network to stem spiralling costs, particularly in the current climate, when cuts are hitting so many people so hard. At such times, the focus must be on efficiency and efficacy.
I hope that, when the Minister winds up the debate, he will be kind enough to answer the following questions. What changes will be made to the implementation of Government policy outside the United Kingdom when it spans a range of Departments? Who decides which Department is best placed to co-ordinate joint action between Departments, and how will funding to support that be secured? Will the cuts mean a diminution of the role of the FCO within the Government, and what impact will they have on its continued strategic role in that capacity? Is it not worrying that the United Kingdom’s international role will become further stratified and unbalanced, as Departments such as the MOD and DFID, which have protected budgets, will have a stronger role without the balancing mechanism that the FCO can bring to that work?
Sir Simon Fraser acknowledged that the issue of human rights was no longer a top priority, and it needs to be re-established as such.
Let me now say something about what the FCO looks like to the outside world. In the same speech, Sir Simon conceded that, in the past, the FCO’s culture had been
“too narrow, too white and too male”,
He argued that that culture had been improved on his watch, but acknowledged that there was still much more to be done to achieve more diversity, in the full sense of the word. Cuts in the Department may threaten progress in the vital area of equality and diversity. There were no women on the shortlist to replace Fraser as permanent under-secretary. He also noted that the FCO had yet to appoint a woman ambassador to its most prestigious posts, such as those in Washington and Paris, although he emphasised that women were now ambassadors in both Beijing and Kabul. He ascribed that to the “pipeline” of diversity in the organisation, pointing out that the FCO had started behind the rest of Whitehall, having been the last Department to abolish its marriage bar, as late as 1973. Fraser anticipated that there would be some competitive female candidates to replace his successor, both from within the FCO and from outside.
On the subject of wider diversity, although 12% of its total workforce is from a minority ethnic background, the FCO leadership at senior levels is almost exclusively white. Fraser said that there had been a cultural switch to understanding that diversity not only mattered but was good for the FCO, leading to better decisions and outcomes. That applies also to the wider workplace, wherever it might be, and indeed to this House itself.
So what impact will these proposed changes to the Department’s budget have on the work of the FCO to address this culture? What schemes and initiatives within the Department will be funded in the next year specifically to address these issues? An isolationist agenda in our international relations has already damaged the UK’s image. At the very least, let us make sure that this is not reflected in this country’s workforce diversity. This should be, and is indeed, our strength.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I congratulate the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and his Committee—albeit perhaps in its previous form—on making a recommendation that the Government have actually listened to. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that the Chancellor’s announcement on Foreign and Commonwealth Office spending drew a line under the reductions that had taken place over many years. Like many who have spoken in the debate today, I believe that those reductions have damaged Britain’s ability to project soft power.
I have just come from a meeting of the Defence Committee, at which we heard about an organisation called the Conflict Studies Research Centre, which used to be based within Whitehall. It was a Government organisation, but it was cut in a similar way to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay when he talked about our ability to inform the Executive of what was going on. However, I am delighted to say that it has re-emerged in the private sector. With London continuing to be a major hub for international organisations, think-tanks and other sources of expertise in foreign affairs and defence issues, we need to be smarter and more fleet of foot in using those resources—much as similar resources are used in Washington, perhaps rather better than we use ours.
In my capacity as a Minister and subsequently in roles on Select Committees and on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have been privileged to see our Foreign Office posts working abroad and I have huge respect for those who work in them. The programme of post closures was reversed under the coalition Government, and that was very welcome, but I believe that what we have in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has become broad and shallow. We need to concentrate on finding depth, and I therefore agree with many of the sentiments that have been expressed today. William Hague’s reopening of the language school is a welcome part of the re-engagement with those important skills.
Through Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts abroad, the UK projects soft power. I often see this in my capacity as a trade envoy. Cuts to the FCO are short-sighted. When we engage with countries and build relationships over long periods of time, that is reflected in jobs at home, in exports and in helping our balance of payments. I have seen our influence way exceed expenditure because of the hard work being put into relationships being built with Governments, people of influence and countries. I am kicking the dust off my feet following a trip to Jordan and Lebanon last week with the Defence Committee. I should like to put on record my thanks to those two outstanding posts and to the ambassadors, the defence attachés, the political officers and the security staff operating in those countries. The United Kingdom’s stock is high over there, and we are benefiting from trying to keep those two countries stable in the face of unbelievable threats from over the border in Syria and Iraq.
I want to concentrate on what my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay called trouble spots. He perhaps looked back with a degree of Schadenfreude, and in some cases he was justified in expressing that, although in other cases I might question it. In looking at trouble spots, he said that we should look forward and ask where the trouble spots of the future might be. I suggest that a glaring example is a resurgent Russia.
Whitehall had real experts on the Soviet Union throughout the cold war, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said. When the Soviet Union fell, many of those posts were stripped out as the people retired, were let go or moved to other areas of the Foreign Office or other Departments. At that point, our corporate knowledge fell to an alarming degree. I may be straying from the point slightly here, but the Defence Intelligence Service had no Ukraine desk officer at the time of the uprising. It had to borrow one from the South Caucasus desk. I imagine that similar problems existed elsewhere in the Foreign Office as the glaring reality of a major threat to the interests of Britain and NATO suddenly emerged. There is a real need to understand these threats and to examine how we should resource them in the future.
I am not making any excuses for the Soviet Union, but at least in those days there was some kind of group accountability in that country and we did not feel that the regime was simply being run by one individual on his whim. Now, Russia is ruled by one autocratic mega-thief, a kleptocrat of quite staggering proportions who can annex the sovereign territory of another state, who can have people murdered on the streets of London and no doubt elsewhere, and who oversees a regime that murders people such as the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in prison in Russia. I wonder how many more Litvinenkos and Magnitskys there are. This is a man who can do to parts of Syria what he did to Grozny and who can threaten states that we are treaty-bound to defend under our membership of NATO. This is an individual for whom rules-based governance is anathema. We should therefore govern much of our thinking—and much of the way in which we resource our foreign policy and defence policy—by the use of one clear question: “What would Putin want?”
Richard Benyon
The right hon. Gentleman must have read the next page of my speech. I shall answer that question precisely in a moment; I think he will agree with what I have to say.
What President Putin would want first is for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget to be curtailed. He would also want a weaker NATO that was riven by infighting and that continued to run down its armed forces, as it has done in years gone by. He would also want a NATO that did not respond to an escalation in aggressive actions against states on Russia’s western border. He has had a bit of bad news in that regard, however, because there has been a reversal in the decline in defence spending, not least by Britain but also by some of our allies. This situation requires massive efforts of diplomacy to keep our alliances moving in the right direction, showing resolve and showing the ability to stand up to the actions of his regime.
To answer the question from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), Putin wants a west in which influential countries such as Britain become less influential. I think the right hon. Gentleman can see where I am going here. Putin wants a weakened European Union. Let us remember that it is the EU, not NATO, that can impose damaging sanctions against his regime. He hates having an economic rule-setter on his western border.
As the leader of the UK delegation to NATO, I recently attended a meeting with other delegation leaders at NATO headquarters. Informally and formally, our allies crossed the floor to ask me, with varying degrees of incredulity, whether Britain was really going to leave the EU. I hope that the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report will look not only at the costs of a possible Brexit but at the impact it would have on the geopolitics of our European foreign policy. These people, including Americans, were coming up to me and saying, “Now? At this time? Really? With all that threatens Europe, economically, militarily and societally?” There is much that our diplomats and intelligence services have to do in the coming years: shore up our alliances, particularly NATO; encourage more spending on defence among our allies; and use all methods, through both our hard and soft power postures, to deter Russia. This is about how we invest; how we work with our allies; and how we exercise our armed forces and show strength.
Daniel Kawczynski
When we met Jens Stoltenberg in Brussels last week, he not only concurred with a lot of what my hon. Friend is saying, but discussed the other side of the coin, which is the importance of dialogue with Russia. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to attempt to engage with Russia, despite these tensions, to try to defuse them?
Richard Benyon
I entirely agree with that. I am certainly not somebody who believes in confrontation; my hon. Friend probably knows that well, as he knows how I operate in this House, and exactly the same applies in how we deal with a potential aggressor. The purpose of what I am saying today is that not only should we be strong, showing that our alliance is strong and that we are not going to see the envelope of article 5 pushed by people such as President Putin, but we should engage diplomatically with him and with his regime to try to get some common sense. We should use resources such as the World Service and the British Council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay talked about earlier. Very movingly last week, a Romanian who works at NATO said that the greatest treat of her day used to be sitting under her bedcovers listening to the British World Service, as it kept her in touch with what was going on in the west and the freedoms that we enjoy, and she just used to want some of that—she has now got it. Through such means, we can also influence people in Russia.
Daniel Kawczynski
When I used to go back to Warsaw to see my grandfather in communist times, we always listened to the BBC World Service, albeit very quietly and with the curtains drawn, as of course it was illegal to do so. That was a great comfort to my grandfather and his generation of Poles, as they knew there were people outside, beyond the iron curtain, who were struggling for them and ensuring that they were kept informed.
Richard Benyon
As always, my hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, and he and his family perhaps understand this more than any of us in this House.
Let me conclude by talking about one concept in foreign policy, which is our will—our will to make a better world and to extol the virtues of the kind of society that we enjoy in this country and that most of our European colleagues also enjoy in the west. We face difficulties in that; we get on with our lives as independent members of different alliances, be it NATO, the EU or other arrangements we have, whereas an aggressor such as Russia is one country controlled pretty much by one individual, and so our will is tested. On the face of it, we should not be alarmed, because across NATO 3.2 million troops are under arms and the four largest NATO members spend $740 billion a year on defence compared with Russia’s figure of £65.6 billion. But that statistic, stark as it is, does not describe the depth of the problem we are seeing in places such as Ukraine, Georgia and Syria, and the threats, be they actual or subversive, faced by NATO countries such as the Baltic states. We have to have a strong will, and proving that we have it requires resources, commitment and the hard slog of soft power and diplomatic efforts. It requires language skills and a real in-depth understanding. Of course there are other problems in the world, for example, in the South China sea, in Africa and elsewhere, which draw many of those resources away from a particular problem.
As so many people have said in this debate, we do not know what is coming round the corner next, but I am certain about one thing: Russia will tweak NATO’s nose, push the envelope of article 5, be it through cyber, by playing on Russian-speaking nationals in certain countries or just by threatening countries that are friendly to us but not members of NATO, such as Sweden, through incursions into their waters or airspace. Today, in the Defence Committee, we were told that
“any weakness on our part, Russia exploits.”
Making sure that Russia understands that the west will respond and will punish it if it attacks a NATO state must remain a key foreign policy objective—but it is one that needs proper resourcing.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome the opportunity for this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I agree entirely with what he said about President Putin. Others have made these points today, but let me address President Putin directly: esli vy hotite pogovorit' c nami, my budem govorit's vami. I hope he will have heard that message—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I hope that was in order, because I have no idea what the right hon. Gentleman just said. If he would translate it for the benefit of those of us who do not speak Russian, I would be very grateful.
Tom Brake
I am happy to translate it. I simply said that if President Putin wants to talk to us, we will be very happy to talk to him. The hon. Member for Newbury talked about language skills, which is an important matter, as without them it is difficult to engage effectively with others.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is no longer in his place, because if he had he been, I would have disagreed with him on the subject of Syria. What we know about the situation in Syria is that since the UK Parliament decided not to take action some years ago, a quarter of a million people have died, more than 4 million people have become refugees in neighbouring countries and 7 million people or more have become refugees within Syria. Although we cannot know for certain what the impact of limited UK military involvement might have been, we know and can see in concrete terms the consequences of the failure to take any action.
Crispin Blunt
Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of what we were being asked to take action for?
Stephen Gethins
I was going to raise a similar point to the one raised by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who discussed the Russians. If we were to take action, what would the consequences of Russian action be? Does this not go to the very heart of the debate we are having about the need to fund the Foreign Affairs Committee properly, in order to address military action?
Tom Brake
Indeed. To respond to the earlier point, we were being asked to leave open the opportunity of military action being taken in the future. That is what the debate and the vote were about; it was not a vote about whether we should take military action at that point. It would have left open that opportunity, but because the vote went against leaving open that opportunity, the chance to take military action in Syria was closed down at that point. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) that the whole purpose of this debate is to highlight the importance of funding the Foreign and Commonwealth Office adequately.
Crispin Blunt
I think I can help the right hon. Gentleman. We were being invited to take military action in order to deprive President Assad’s regime of its chemical weapons—that was what we were being asked to do. If there was a proposition to do something much wider, that is the one that should have been put to the House.
Tom Brake
My recollection may be slightly different from that of the hon. Gentleman, but if I recall it correctly the vote was about leaving open the option of the UK Parliament taking military action at a point in the future, which would have required another vote. The UK Parliament decided at that point to say that it did not want to leave open the option of that future action, and I regret the fact that that decision was taken.
On the European Union, I hope we will be able to engage in a positive campaign on this matter. This is not entirely related to the estimates, but I wonder whether the Minister for Europe has a view about whether the GO—Grassroots Out—campaign is the one that should be pushed forward as the campaign for Brexit, on the basis that it is a good cross-party campaign and is perhaps best placed to represent the Brexit campaign.
I have a suggestion that will cost the FCO absolutely nothing. Once, hopefully, the EU referendum campaign is over and we have convinced the country that we are better off in, I hope to see the Ministers who have quite recently come out in favour of our membership of the European Union occasionally talking about the benefits of our being in the EU. The difficulty over the next four months is that many of those Ministers who have now rightly stated that, on balance, we are better off in the European Union, have previously not highlighted some of the positives involved. This suggestion that Ministers should speak more positively about the EU will have no cost to the FCO.
On Syria, it would be helpful to know exactly what is being built in the budget for what we hope will happen after the ceasefire. If the ceasefire holds, and we get to a position in which there is a degree of stabilisation in Syria, there will clearly be a need for the FCO to make quite a substantial financial commitment to greater involvement in the stabilisation process that should then follow. I hope that we have budgeted for that.
Let me turn now to human rights and the importance of having an FCO policy that promotes human rights. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) rightly referred to what the permanent under-secretary had said, which was that human rights
“is one of the things we follow, it is not one of our top priorities.”
He then went on to say in response to a subsequent question that
“right now the prosperity agenda is further up the list”.
I wrote to the permanent under-secretary to get some clarity over what he was saying about human rights and the prosperity agenda. I wanted to know how the two things worked together and whether one had a greater priority than the other. He replied, for which I was very grateful, but he did not comment on his quote, but what he did provide was a useful breakdown of how many people within the FCO, in full-time equivalent terms, work on human rights versus the number of people who work principally on prosperity. The figures are that 240 people work on human rights, against 2,900 people on prosperity. I do not know what is in the estimates from a budgetary point of view, but will the Minister tell us whether there is some sort of forward vision about how that balance might change?
Clearly, there are many, many human rights issues around the world—the Minister will be pleased to know that I will refer to but a few of the things in the thick sheaf I have here—and I want to know the FCO will be fully engaged in that. Let me run through them very quickly. First, on Burma, it is very pleasing that there are developments there, but I know that some of the Burma campaign groups are very worried that, even with the important role that Aung San Suu Kyi is playing, some minority groups are at a greater risk now than they were before. That requires FCO attention.
In Bahrain, we know that the UK Government are working with the prison authorities and the police to improve the regard for human rights, but there are concerns that the policy is not yet delivering the goods. I want to be certain that the FCO is sufficiently resourced to deal with such matters. I could say the same about China as well.
Perhaps the most worrying development—this is where the FCO really does need to invest very heavily to ensure that it has the right number of people in place—is with regard to Saudi Arabia and Yemen. I am really concerned that, at some point in the near future, it will be confirmed that there have been breaches of international humanitarian law. There are enough organisations that have produced evidence to suggest that that is likely to be the case. The FCO will be in a very difficult position. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has repeatedly said that there have been discussions with the Saudis and that assurances have been given, it seems that the evidence points in the other direction. The FCO needs to monitor very carefully the activities of the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for assessing whether IHL has been broken. It would be in no one’s interests to find out subsequently that, in fact, IHL had been broken in relation to the activities of the Saudis in Yemen.
I am pleased to hear that, perhaps without great fanfare, the Committees on Arms Export Controls has been re-established. I hope that, at its first inquiry, it will look at the question of UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia, because that is the most pressing problem.
I could also mention human rights issues in Sri Lanka, which remain a priority for the Tamil community. There is also the matter of the human rights of the Ahmadi Muslim community in various countries around the world where they are often put under pressure.
I will finish by saying that the investment that we make in the FCO, whether it is hard investment in terms of our presence around the world or the soft power to which many Members referred, must be a priority for us. It helps us to punch above our weight and to ensure that the UK, whether it is through the British Council or our embassy presences around the world, is a major player on the world stage. I would like to ensure that that continues.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and all his colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), on the important job they have done in producing the report and the quite considerable success that they have achieved in persuading the Chancellor at least to maintain the Foreign Office budget more or less at what it was in the face of very great pressure. I will come back to some of those points as we go on.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) pointed out, this is a debate on the estimates. Madam Deputy Speaker, you were only doing your job when you called my hon. Friend to order, because of the rules and conventions of this House by which you are bound. None the less, it does serve to demonstrate the complete inadequacy of the estimates process. The motion in front of us today authorises, in clauses 2 and 3, the expenditure of more than £50 million of public money, yet the Chamber is almost empty. There has not even been a single contribution from the Back Benches of the Official Opposition party. The broader estimates are contained in the mighty tome, House of Commons paper 747, which was no doubt named after a jumbo jet owing to its not inconsiderable size. Yet here we are, barely an hour and 20 minutes after starting this debate, moving to the wind-up speeches.
All kinds of important Government expenditure will have no kind of real in-depth scrutiny. Page 407 includes a payment from the resources reserves (programme) budget in respect of the battle of New Orleans commemoration—an increase of £142,000. Page 410 contains a transfer to the Cabinet Office (capital) budget in respect of the Foxhound Project—perhaps the Minister can tell us what that is. There is a decrease of £3 million to that Government budget. Also on page 410 is a cost-neutral transfer of the old Admiralty building, which is much appreciated by FCO officials, I am sure, to the Department for Education.
Crispin Blunt
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and with the arguments, which were almost in order, about the quality of the estimates. As he has raised this question, perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate he can explain why we have given that money to celebrate a British defeat that happened after the peace treaty was concluded on the war in which it took place. Perhaps we can also have an explanation of the biggest number of all in the Foreign Office estimates, which is the budget-neutral increase in programming expenditure fully offset by an increase in receipts in respect of revised intergovernmental charging, which appears to be a sum of £220 million. If the Minister could explain that, we might at least have had some focus on the estimates themselves.
Patrick Grady
The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. It demonstrates the complete lack of scrutiny. Madam Deputy Speaker, you did, of course, say that there are other mechanisms—such as Select Committees, statements, Question Times and Westminster Hall—through which we can discuss different aspects of expenditure. The estimates process itself is clearly inadequate, particularly for those Members from Scotland who were told during the debates on English votes for English laws that this was the opportunity for us to discuss Barnett consequentials and the impact of legislation on which we cannot vote because of the EVEL procedures. It seems that that opportunity is being denied to us. As a member of the Procedure Committee, I look forward to our inquiry into the estimates procedure and to questioning Ministers, particularly Treasury Ministers, and Members from all parties about how we can make this procedure fair. As I am at risk of deviating too far from the motion and being ruled out of order myself, I will now turn to the more general themes of the debate in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, and the broader issue of the FCO’s role and function.
It seems from the tone of the debate that the FCO is in a somewhat precarious situation. It is a victim, like so many other Departments, people and communities across the country, of the Government’s ideological commitment to swingeing public service cuts, no matter what the cost. In the SNP manifesto, we showed that it was possible modestly to increase public services, while over the long term still balancing the books and paying down the public debt. This estimate is one of the more unforeseen and probably slightly less concerning aspects of that commitment, as it does not impinge on people’s day-to-day lives in the way that so many other cuts are. Nevertheless, it is the impact of an ideological drive from the Government.
At the same time, that approach is leading to an increasingly ideological and almost isolationist narrowing of focus and interest, with a divergence away from what should be priority areas—the protection of human rights and the promotion of peaceful and sustainable development. Some of that was alluded to in the discussion about the role of the FCO and its expenditure on overseas and official development assistance. The SNP has long welcomed the Government’s commitment to 0.7% of GNI to be spent on ODA, but meeting the target is not a blank cheque to spend that on whatever the Government can cram into the definition of ODA. I have several times raised on the Floor of the House the increasing overlap between expenditure for that target and that for the 2% NATO target, which might be allowed in principle but I do not think is what people expected in practice when the Government made those commitments.
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) mentioned ODA and the funding of the World Service, and I share a number of his concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) talked about the importance of effective co-operation across Government, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s responses to her points.
The headline FCO budget is one of the smallest in government, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the most effective or efficient. The discussion, as I have said, is in the context of the pressure being felt across public spending, so if the FCO’s budget is to be protected it must be used efficiently. From the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) we heard some statistics about the number of people employed. Over my lifetime I have, for various reasons, visited three of Her Majesty’s embassies and high commissions around the world. I was in Malawi, where, despite 2 million people in that country not having access to clean water, the high commissioner has a swimming pool at his disposal in his residence. In Zambia, a tennis court is provided in a country in which most children probably play football without shoes. Just the week before last I was in Berlin, where I found that the embassy takes up an entire street block and practically stops the traffic through one of the main thoroughfares right next door to it.
There are undoubtedly efficiencies to be found. We were told during the independence referendum that Scotland could never afford a network of global embassies, outposts and so on—that this would be one of the crippling costs of independence. To be fair, if we were to try to replicate what the FCO has, that might well be true. However, I think that a country such as Scotland could probably manage much more modestly. Indeed, considering the role that we play in the world today, so could the United States—I mean the United Kingdom, although the United States probably could too, for that matter.
Other issues that the FCO needs to consider have been mentioned in other debates. There was a useful debate in Westminster Hall a while back about consular assistance, especially for bereaved families following the loss of loved ones overseas. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), about concerns that one of my constituents raised about support for people who are victims of terrorist attacks—or, more accurately in her case, who witness terrorist attacks, as she did in Tunisia. She feels very concerned about the lack of information and communication, which I have mentioned in parliamentary questions and in a letter to the Under-Secretary.
Finally, we have also heard about the downgrading of human rights in the FCO’s priority areas. The director of Amnesty International has said:
“The UK is setting a dangerous precedent to the world on human rights. There’s no doubt that the downgrading of human rights by this government is a gift to dictators the world over and fatally undermines our ability to call on other countries to uphold rights and laws.”
This is a serious concern about which I have heard from a number of civil society organisations, and it is important that it is addressed. Nowhere else is that more true than with the situation in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, where UK planes with pilots trained in the UK and bombs made in the UK, co-ordinated in the presence of UK military advisers, are being used in the war in Yemen. At some point, the Government must tell us when that adds up to complicity in that war.
In conclusion, these next two days ought to be taken up by a debate on the estimates process, but we have shown in this debate the inadequacy of the House’s processes and procedures for dealing with estimates and expenditure. We have also touched on the important role of the FCO, the pressures it faces as a result of the Government’s ideological budget cuts and the challenges that that presents for more effective use of taxpayers’ money and co-ordination across Departments.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this important debate. With an international network of 268 posts across 168 states, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a long and proud history as a world leader in diplomacy, securing peace, protecting citizens abroad and providing an overseas platform to many domestic Departments and agencies.
Last year, the UK was ranked No. 1 in the world in Portland’s league table of soft power. As the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who is no longer in his place, mentioned, the concept of the battle of ideas is incredibly important as we approach the concept of our work abroad. The question is whether this year’s spending review undermines the important work of the FCO and our standing in the world of diplomacy. We know that since 2010 the Government have repeatedly cut the budget of the FCO, and now we have a Foreign Office that not only has the smallest budget of any Whitehall Department but has had its budget slashed by 16% in real terms.
According to the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee mentioned several times in today’s debate, we spend less on diplomacy than Canada, France, the United States and even New Zealand. Germany spends almost 50% more than this Government do. Some key states, such as China, Brazil, Indonesia and Russia, are actually increasing their diplomatic budgets. Although I welcome and support the announcement that the FCO’s budget will be protected in real terms, that comes after five years of cuts that have reduced the workforce to an all-time low and risked undermining its ability to have influence in the world. The Committee’s report, which we have debated at length, shows that over the last Parliament the country was found to be lacking in expertise, analytic capability and language skills to manage the fallout from the Arab spring and the crisis in Ukraine. We heard some very interesting Russian from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) emphasised the importance of acquiring language skills. One never knows when one might need a language.
I hope the House will receive from the Minister today a clear outline of spending estimates which will demonstrate how he intends to repair the damage already inflicted on his Department, to allow the UK to pursue its political and diplomatic objectives and maintain the global lead in soft power resources.
Last summer the world observed the largest refugee crisis since the second world war. According to figures released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are an estimated 59.9 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, more than 20 million of whom are externally displaced refugees. As has been discussed in the House frequently since the summer, millions of those refugees are fleeing the destabilising civil war in Syria. Earlier today, following the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), the House was fully engaged in a debate about how the situation in Syria could improve. We must have the resources to match the energy and the desire in this House to see peace in the middle east.
Given the media coverage, it would be easy to think that that was where the problem ended, but we know that millions of people have fled Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Burma, Iraq, Eritrea, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Gaza and the west bank—the crisis is global. I take this desperate situation as a clear example of why we need a Foreign and Commonwealth Office that is properly funded and capable of engaging with these issues. Only a properly funded Foreign Office can allow the UK to take its place at the United Nations Security Council to set an agenda that seeks to address the causes of the international refugee crisis.
It has become clear that as a result of five years of cuts, there has been a change in the FCO’s focus and a downgrading of its focus on human rights. The Committee Report noted:
“The Permanent Under-Secretary acknowledged that human rights was now not one of the top priorities and that ‘in a constrained environment’, other elements of the FCO’s work had ‘supplanted it to an extent’. We believe this to be a consequence of the savings imposed so far on the Department.”
To give one example on which there has been a lot of correspondence between Labour colleagues and others, Mr Andargachew Tsige is a British citizen currently imprisoned in Ethiopia. We could devote much more energy to such cases, were we to have the resources in country.
At one time securing peace, strengthening human rights and protecting our citizens abroad were at the top of the FCO’s list of priorities, yet the recent state visit by China, for example, appears to illustrate the fact that the Foreign Secretary’s top priority for the FCO is mainly commercial. It was up to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to raise specifically the problem of the tariff arrangements which put UK steel at a trade disadvantage with China, human rights in China, climate change and the need to tackle enduring poverty. In recent months, the priority of international security in relation to the South China sea has come to the fore.
This Government’s foreign policy lacks balance. Trade with China or any other nation is only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin, human rights, appears to have declined in importance. The Foreign Secretary has committed to an “internal review” following the Foreign Affairs Committee report. We look forward to seeing that, yet this House is still waiting to be told if it will be made public. Ministers should explain why they will not commit now to publishing this important document, given the clear public and national interest.
In conclusion, the FCO website states that its priorities are to protect British people and promote our global influence and prosperity. After five years of cuts, the question is whether the FCO remains fit to deliver those priorities. There is strong evidence, much of which we have heard in the House today, that diplomatic operations have been devalued and the FCO’s workforce has been cut right back. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on projected estimates, and I hope to hear more about how an adequately resourced Foreign and Commonwealth Office might lead to a more rounded foreign policy.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for bringing their report to the debate this afternoon.
From both sides of the House, there was a common theme: the importance of an effective diplomatic service and Foreign Office in advancing and defending the interests of the United Kingdom in the face of multiple challenges in different parts of the world. I thank in particular those hon. Members who paid tribute to the work of individual members of Her Majesty’s diplomatic service. That gives me the opportunity not only to thank those individuals myself, but to put on the record my own thanks and those of the ministerial team for the professionalism and commitment that members of the diplomatic service have shown to us, as they have to previous Governments. They continue to work day in, day out on behalf of the people of this country.
I want to move on to the spending review and the settlement for the FCO, but I cannot quite let the remarks of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) go without comment. I completely understand that it is the job of an Opposition spokesman to try to find criticisms to make of the Government—I remember doing that myself some years back—but the degree of amnesia that infected her judgment on this occasion was astounding. It was as if the years from 1997 to 2010 had been airbrushed out of the historical record.
It is worth reminding the House that under the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Foreign Office’s budget was cut, posts were closed, the language school was axed altogether, the library was scrapped, and we got to the craziest situation of all. After the Treasury had removed the traditional protection arrangement that it had offered against the Foreign Office’s exposure to foreign exchange movements, as a result of the payment of salaries and bills by overseas posts, the hon. Lady’s former colleague, Mr David Miliband, was reduced to having to draft in members of the diplomatic service to establish a hedge fund unit inside the Foreign Office so that the Foreign Office could try and run a hedging operation of its own. I do not want to hear too many lectures from the Labour party about Foreign Office expenditure and sensible budgeting.
The Foreign Affairs Committee and the House as a whole are entitled to ensure that the Government are held properly to account for delivery of their responsibilities in the field of foreign and security affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and, I think, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) asked about two or three specific items in the estimates. I am going to have to write to them about two of those, but I can give them some satisfaction on the question of the battle of New Orleans, because I have been passed some additional advice. The purpose of the occasion was to commemorate the British dead in that battle and celebrate the 200 years of peace that have followed between the United Kingdom and the United States. The Foreign Office has contributed $215,000; other contributors have included the state of Louisiana and Boeing, and there has also been a significant personal contribution from our honorary consul in New Orleans.
Crispin Blunt
While my right hon. Friend is on that issue, can we see how adroit he and his team are? Will he explain what the Foxhound Project is? Is this a welcome addition to the leisure activities of Her Majesty’s Government, or is it expenditure in respect of something else?
Mr Lidington
If my hon. Friend is expecting to reopen the debate on field sports, I will definitely disappoint him. That is one of the subjects on which I will write to him and the hon. Member for Glasgow North.
The Foreign Affairs Committee report, published on 20 October last year, came before the publication of the spending review, the national security strategy and the new development strategy in November last year. The report was important, because it contributed to an extremely vigorous public debate about the importance of continuing to invest in our diplomatic resources.
As a number of hon. Members noted, the Chancellor responded in his spending review. He noted in his statement in this place the crucial role of what he described as “our outstanding diplomatic service”, and he announced that the Government would protect the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in real terms. That is important because, as right hon. and hon. Members across the House have said, an effective and expert diplomatic service is an important element in allowing this country to respond to the international challenges that we face to our interests.
Now, there is no avoiding the fact that, despite that commitment to protect the FCO’s budget in real terms, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will still have difficult decisions to take about relative priorities in the Department, but that is no more than the challenge that would confront any Secretary of State. We would all like to feel that the budgets available to us were unlimited; in the real world, however, those budgets are finite, and they are constrained by the Government’s overall need to bring down the deficit and address this country’s long history of living beyond its means in terms of the public finances.
The Future FCO review, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate asked me, is designed in part to find ways in which we can secure our objectives as a Department by doing things differently. I have talked briefly to the reviewer, who is also speaking to other Ministers and senior officials, and the purpose of the review is to advise Ministers and senior officials on how the FCO can be more expert, more agile and more focused on its key priorities than it is at the moment.
I expect the review to be in a position to set out its conclusions later this year—by the end of the spring, I hope. We intend there to be a clear vision of how the FCO should look by 2020, so that we can implement changes in the Department to enable us, within the priorities and resources we have, to secure our objectives more effectively and more efficiently than in the past. We also hope that the review will ensure that, where efficiencies can be made, the savings can be channelled straight back into serving the core objectives that the Foreign Secretary has set.
My hon. Friend asked about the spending review letter. The Government’s policy in respect of all Departments is not to publish settlement letters. There is plenty of public information in the spending review documentation and the Chancellor’s speech and answers. The letters are part of ongoing policy discussions, so it is not appropriate that they should be in the public domain at this time.
The overall resource departmental expenditure limit for the FCO will rise in line with inflation in each of the four years covered by the spending review, increasing our funding from £1.1 billion in 2015-16 to £1.24 billion by 2019-20. We believe that this settlement will enable the Department to maintain our world-class diplomatic service, including our network of posts around the world, which host not only the FCO but 32 other Government Departments and agencies. That global presence and continued foreign policy leadership in Whitehall by the FCO will serve to protect our national security, promote our prosperity and project the UK’s values overseas.
In line with the Government’s commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance, the FCO will be allocated additional ODA-eligible resources, more than doubling our spending from £273 million to £560 million in 2019-20. That will enable us to pursue our key foreign policies and to deliver the ambitions set out in the national security strategy and the development strategy.
The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) asked, very reasonably, how we reconciled the priorities of different Departments and ensured that, as far as possible, they incorporated within an overall agreed Government approach. The answer, in part, is that there are frequent conversations between Ministers in the different Departments dealing with external affairs and between their officials. However, in the broadest sense, the strategic direction on the key elements of the United Kingdom’s external policy is set after discussion by the National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister. The NSC brings together the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor, the International Development Secretary, the Defence Secretary and other interested Ministers precisely so that we can agree on an approach that harnesses the different skills of all Government Departments and, at the same time, establishes which Departments are to contribute which resources to that common objective.
The settlement includes increased spending to support the UK’s overseas territories. In order to meet our long-standing commitment to address their reasonable needs, the FCO will co-ordinate a new strategy for the overseas territories and chair a new director-level board to co-ordinate cross-Government activity. Furthermore, as announced by the Prime Minister during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malta in November last year, the United Kingdom will host the next such Heads of Government gathering in 2018, and the FCO will co-ordinate that event.
The spending review settlement provides the same budget for Chevening scholarships as in 2015-16 of £46 million per year. Over its 32-year history, that scholarship scheme has built up a large and influential alumni network aligned with the interests of the United Kingdom, and this funding will ensure that that continues.
A number of hon. Members asked about language training and language skills. The FCO language centre was reopened in September 2013 to renew the focus on and investment in languages as a core diplomatic skill, and ensure that we get the right people with the right skills in the right jobs to deliver our objectives. As a priority, we will allocate new funds to improve Mandarin, Russian and Arabic language skills. In 2015, we trained 34 staff in Arabic, 14 in Mandarin and 24 in Russian, as well as 35 in French and 28 in Spanish. I completely accept that more needs to be done, but we are making progress, and there is a very clear commitment to continuing to develop language skills.
In addition, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will spend up to £24 million over the next four years to increase the presence of its counter-terrorism and extremism experts overseas. In sum, our budget will allow us to focus on our key foreign policy objectives, including tackling Daesh and ensuring security in Europe. It will also allow us to do even more to prevent conflict and encourage stability in fragile states. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the Department will need to become leaner and build on its core strengths, and reinvest and refocus resources on new priorities. That is the reason for the review, about which I have already spoken, and it is also what lies behind the creation of a new digital transformation unit, the purpose of which is to ensure that FCO officials have access to the latest techniques for using modern technology in their work. After a year in operation, the diplomatic academy is already boosting both broader policy capability and specialist skills.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) asked about the tech overhaul programme. We are planning for its global deployment from 2016 to 2018, and a headline figure of £105 million has been agreed by the FCO board. We believe that the overhaul will provide greater speed, stability and reliability, and, partly by reducing the time currently lost because of inadequate IT systems, increase the productivity of staff members. We are using our IT partner, BAE Systems, to help deliver the tech overhaul to industry best practice standards.
A number of hon. Members asked about human rights. We have taken action to mainstream human rights across the FCO network. The issue remains a priority, but we believe that, rather than it being ring-fenced for a few specialist staff, it should be the responsibility of all British diplomats. More detail of our approach has been provided in our written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s human rights inquiry, to which my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Anelay gave evidence on 24 February.
Mr Lidington
The difficulty with providing numbers is that we are talking about not only people who will be in post, but people in desk offices in London who will spend part of their time on human rights and other parts of it on prosperity and advancing British economic interest. I do not think there is a contradiction between the two. When I talk to British businesses about possible investment markets, they frequently tell me that when they assess investment opportunities in a particular country, one of the criteria they use is how good the rule of law is in that country. From a business point of view, they do not want to take the risk of putting money into a place and then finding that, because of corruption, their money, licence or permit is revoked at the behest of some political leader. This is not guaranteed, but a country with an effective rule of law of the kind that will attract inward investment is more likely to have genuinely independent courts and to respect the rights of individuals, so I think that the two go together.
In addition to its resource allocation, the FCO will be provided with a flat cash settlement of £98 million of capital funding per year, to invest in our estate. That will provide further investment across the estate, to maintain our global network and to keep diplomats and other Government staff safe while they work for the UK abroad. Additional capital requirements will be funded from asset sales and the recycling of receipts and, where necessary, through recourse to the reserve.
I have been asked about cross-Whitehall funds. I can confirm that the Government’s spending on international priorities will increase further, with a larger conflict, stability and security fund, a new prosperity fund and more funding for both the British Council and the BBC World Service. The CSSF, through which the FCO funds much of its conflict prevention work, will grow by 19% in real terms by 2019-20 to a total of £1.5 billion a year. That will strengthen our ability to support stabilisation in countries such as Syria, Ukraine, Somalia and Afghanistan, and it will strengthen our response to serious transnational threats, including extremism, serious and organised crime, and illegal migration.
In the conflict, security and stabilisation fund allocations for 2015-16, £400 million were allocated to countries eligible for official development assistance and £633 million to non-ODA countries. The new prosperity fund will be worth £1.3 billion over the next five years, and it will be used to support global growth, trade and stability. That will help us to reduce poverty in emerging and developing countries, and it will open up new markets and opportunities to the United Kingdom. Our diplomatic network helps to facilitate deals for trade and inward investment, to tackle barriers to our own businesses, and to promote open economies and a rules-based international system, which will benefit British business now and in the future.
Funding for the British Council will be protected in real terms, but there will need to be a shift in the balance between ODA and non-ODA funding to support an expansion of the council’s work in developing countries. In addition, the British Council will be able to bid for up to £700 million in additional funding to improve links with emerging economies, help to tackle extremism globally and support good governance.
I was asked about the Department’s human rights work through the Magna Carta fund, and about the balance between ODA and non-ODA countries. The Magna Carta fund has 47 priority countries, the overwhelming majority of which are ODA countries—developing countries. There are four non-ODA countries: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Russia and Israel. Those four, as well as being eligible for support from the Magna Carta fund, are eligible for funding streams such as the Arab partnership fund and the CSSF.
I think there has been agreement across the House that a strong diplomatic service and worldwide network are essential for this country to maintain its position in the world. I believe that the Government’s commitment to protect the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget and provide additional funds for cross-government international activity will ensure that we are able to play a pivotal role, both bilaterally and through the membership of the many international and multilateral organisations of which we are part, in tackling the most important global challenges.
Without wanting to stray too far from the subject matter, I will simply say that I agreed completely with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) about how we can amplify the United Kingdom’s diplomatic reach through our active membership of the European Union. I am therefore confident that the outcome of the spending review is good not only for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British diplomacy, but, most importantly of all, for the interests of the people of the United Kingdom.
Crispin Blunt
With the leave of the House, I will briefly thank hon. and right hon. Members for taking part in this estimates debate on the Foreign Affairs Committee report. I agreed somewhat with the point made during the debate that our ability, as an institution, to oversee the estimates properly is historically woeful and needs to be addressed.
I am grateful for the support that I received for my arguments from my hon. Friends the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) made a point about diversity, which the Minister addressed. That point has power, because clearly we will be better off if our service properly reflects the country in which we live. The organisation was found in 1997 not to reflect that diversity; as it moves away from that position, one wants to be careful about getting there in too much of a hurry, because we might lose some of the talent and ability already in the institution.
There is an issue about how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made that change, and that goes across the piece to its budget. In his response, my right hon. Friend the Minister said that it would not be appropriate at this time to place in the public domain the public expenditure settlement letters. Someone of his experience will recognise a piece of “Yes Minister” speak at the Dispatch Box as well as anyone else. He is, of course, inviting a blizzard of further inquiries if we do not get that detail.
I welcome the Minister’s acceptance of the fact that there is a real need for more progress in language skills. The concern is that he said the Department must become leaner. It is already starving and cannot allocate its resources effectively. What he said about the conflict, stability and security fund being 60:40 in favour of non-ODA countries illustrates the challenges that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office faces. The Committee will continue to examine those challenges during this Parliament.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Home Office
Police Funding Formula
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am very pleased that the House has an opportunity to focus on the important issue of the police funding formula. I will set out the background to, and the timeline of, the funding formula review before assessing where the process is now. The fundamental concern of the Home Affairs Committee is: when is the new review going to start?
I want to thank the members of the Committee, who have unanimously agreed the report—the hon. Members for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani), for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).
The majority of police forces, chief constables, police and crime commissioners and Members of Parliament welcomed the launch of the police funding formula review last year. The manner in which police funding is currently distributed is outdated, inefficient and not fit for purpose. I want to commend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice for taking on this challenge head-on. However, his ambition, which is shared by the whole House, has not been matched by the process.
When the Home Office launched the public consultation on 21 July 2015, it allowed a period of only eight weeks. After receiving an initial 1,700 responses, it laid out its proposed refinements to the model on 28 October. The second proposal was described as “inadequate”—by, among others, Tony Hogg, the Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner—as it gave PCCs and chief constables just three weeks to respond.
The refined model showed that 11 forces would lose by the changes, while the remaining 32 forces would increase their share. The chief constables and PCCs were puzzled and frustrated about how the sums had been calculated. Eventually, it took Andrew White, the chief executive in the office of the Devon and Cornwall PCC, to purchase the original data, and he wrote to the Home Office on 2 November to inform the Home Office that it had used the wrong data in making its calculations. The whole police service and this House owe a debt of gratitude to Andrew White for his actions.
In a letter to me from the permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill has since stated that this error occurred because officials got confused with similar filenames and therefore used the wrong set of data. When the error was discovered, the director general of the crime and policing group at the Home Office, Mary Calam, admitted that she did not understand the significance of the response that she had signed. I am not sure whether that admission was to give us faith in the system or make us question it further. Overnight, police forces across the country had swung from being winners to losers and vice versa. Chief Constable Giles York of Sussex police said that his force went from a £10 million loss to a £2 million gain. Chief Constable Mike Creedon of Derbyshire police said that his force went from a gain of £20 million to a £7 million loss. Chief Constable Simon Cole demonstrated that Leicestershire constabulary was set to lose £700,000 under the old system, but would now lose £2.4 million.
Subsequently, Mr Speaker granted my urgent question on 19 November 2015 and the process was rightly suspended by the Policing Minister. Again, he should be commended for coming to the Dispatch Box and agreeing that the sums were wrong and that the process had to be halted. I do not want to dwell any further on the history, except to say, as it says in the report, that this was a shambolic end to a poorly managed process that significantly damaged the relationship between the Home Office and its primary stakeholders, the police.
Currently, police funding is supposedly being given on the basis of a funding formula that has not been operated for a number of years. The formula is over a decade old and is not based on the latest census data, but on the previous census. It is impossible for police forces to calculate it because many of the data are out of date and it does not take into account the modern nature of policing.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Having acted as the rapporteur for a report on the police funding formula by the Public Accounts Committee, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that one issue is that the formula only really reflects the demands that crime places on the police, and not many of the other issues that they have to deal with? Does he share my disappointment that the shadow Policing Minister is not here to listen to this debate?
Keith Vaz
I make no comment on the absence of the shadow Policing Minister. I am sure that he will come in very soon and make up for lost time. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s first point in my speech. He raises an important issue on the capabilities of the police and the new demands of 21st-century policing.
Mike Creedon, the Derbyshire police chief, said to me that if the current formula was still valid,
“it would be reflecting a reality which is ten years old”.
He is clear, as are many other chief constables, that there is a consensus that we need to restart the process of moving to a fairer funding model. I think that that consensus is reflected throughout the House.
Since the publication of the police grant report in December 2015, concerns have been raised that it represents a real-term cut to grant levels of 1.4% and requires increases to the police element of the council tax precept. Police forces are being required to raise the police precept across the country, including in Cheshire, Northumbria, Humberside and Thames Valley—the area that is partly represented by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Dee Collins of West Yorkshire police estimates that her force has received a 3.2% cut in real terms, even after the PCC agreed to the maximum precept increase.
The Select Committee published its report on 11 December. The Government’s response is now 19 days late. The first question for the Minister is when the response will come.
Last Tuesday, five police and crime commissioners gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee: Ron Ball from Warwickshire, Alan Charles from Derbyshire, Sir Clive Loader from Leicestershire, Katy Bourne from Sussex and Jane Kennedy from Merseyside. It was clear from their evidence that the police and crime commissioners had not been consulted on the new review. Ian Hopkins, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, has said that he wishes to work collectively and collaboratively with the Home Office, as do many PCCs and chiefs.
It is clear from the concerns that have been raised with me by chief constables before this debate that they have not been consulted. However, in the last debate, which as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, was only last Wednesday, the Minister alluded to the fact that he had met a number of chief constables. I am sure that he will enlighten us as to his further discussions when he responds to this debate. Chief Constable Neil Rhodes and Deputy Chief Constable Heather Roach of Lincolnshire police have informed me that they met the Policing Minister last Wednesday, 24 February, to discuss the formula. I hope that he will tell us the outcome of that meeting.
When he replies to the debate, will the Minister tell us about his engagement with police forces, and reassure them that he is taking the matter as seriously as he was when he last appeared before the House? One issue that must be clarified is the capability review undertaken by the National Police Chiefs Council under the leadership of Sara Thornton. If the Minister could advise the House about how far those deliberations have reached, that will assist us in knowing something of the timetable that he has in mind.
It is concerning that since last year’s formula changes were abandoned, there have been no further proposals to work on. The Minister wrote to me on 1 February with an update on the formula arrangements, but as I said, he has not given us a date for when that review will commence. Police forces need to know what is going to happen. Ian Drysdale, the director of business services for Kent police, said that the continuing uncertainty is unhelpful, and that a transition to a new arrangement should be made as soon as possible. Following the glaring errors last year, it is self-evident that the Home Office should redouble its efforts to create a fairer funding model, and it is clear that the funding review should be restarted as swiftly as possible.
You will be interested to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Stephen Kavanagh, chief constable of Essex police, has stated that any prevarication on the part of the Home Office would be hugely disappointing and regrettable. Many have argued that it would be wrong to change the formula in a period of austerity, but on the contrary, austerity could have been a starting point for an informed reassessment of the formula in order to incentivise the police for reforms and deal with other inefficiencies. The flat rate reduction for all forces continues to penalise those who have already received less. However, following the Chancellor’s announcement in the comprehensive spending review on 25 November, which the Committee welcomed, that is less of a concern. In fact, the Home Office has a renewed opportunity to review the formula.
The three key failings aside from the stand-out mistake of confusing data filenames, were essentially process failures, such as sharing exemplifications at an early stage, which meant that data errors went unnoticed until it was too late, setting out transitional arrangements at an early stage, which meant that losers were even more concerned about the potentially immediate damaging impacts on their budget, and not allowing sufficient period for consultation, particularly with PCCs and chief constables. Does the Minister accept that those serious failings should be addressed in a future review process?
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The Minister accepted accountability for the mistake, but as he will know from his experience on the rugby field, he was sold a hospital pass in having to defend his position. A mistake was made at senior level in relation to the management of the process. We need real reassurance that that will not happen again, and there must be accountability in the management of the Home Office, to ensure that such a catastrophic error, which was not picked up and communicated properly to Ministers, does not happen again.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is right, and he made that point when we took evidence from various chief constables and police and crime commissioners. It is vital to have proper accountability during this process, and I will come on to what the Committee agreed should be the best way forward.
The Home Affairs Committee made a number of recommendations on factors that must be included in the new funding review. We must recognise that although policing has changed fundamentally over the past 10 years, funding has never adjusted to it. PCCs from Leicestershire, Sir Clive Loader, from Hampshire, Simon Hayes, from South Wales, Alun Michael, and from West Yorkshire, Mark Burns-Williamson, are among those who have identified the growing level of non-crime demand on police time. Almost all police forces can point to a range of modern demands on police time, including terrorism, cybercrime, modern slavery and child exploitation. The Committee also considered it inexplicable that diversity is not one of the categories and criteria in the funding formula.
Chief Constable Simon Cole, the national lead on Prevent, highlights factors such as required language skills, translation services and the resources required in emerging communities. In Leicester, we could have the happy added burden of European football next season, subject to the outcome of the match at 7.45 pm today and the 10 other remaining matches. It is quite clear that the additional demands on policing in Leicester will be profound.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Wales has specific policing needs? He mentioned diversity and language, but language explicitly springs to mind. The growing powers for the Welsh Assembly call out for policing to be devolved. That is particularly pertinent because Secretary of State for Wales committed yesterday, I believe, to a thorough overhaul of the draft Wales Bill.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Lady is right. That is the point the Committee makes in our report. Different areas have different demands. Policing has changed. It is not as it was 20 years ago or even 10 years ago. Therefore, the police must say what they are doing now, and the Government must say what they want to fund. Of course, the situation in Wales requires special attention.
The indicators proposed by the Home Office in determining funding—there are only four—fail to take into account many of the points raised in the report, and thus miss 70% to 80% of police demand that is not linked to volume crime. The Home Office needs to make absolutely clear what tasks 21st-century policing is expected to take on, and then decide how much it is prepared to fund.
It is of course important that police forces work in a collaborative way. Indeed, the Government are working in a collaborative way. When the Minister came before the House in November to tell us that the police funding formula review was being suspended, he was not then the Minister with responsibility for the fire services. The Government have decided to look across the Government and ensure that they collaborate properly. If they can do so, so can local police forces. If that happens, it must be part of the funding review formula.
One key Committee recommendation was the appointment of an independent panel to assist the Home Office in formulating the revised proposals. That is not because we do not trust Home Office officials to add up. We need a robust and defensible way of looking at the formula and it needs to be independent. Therefore, the Committee went to the trouble of suggesting the kinds of organisations that should sit on the panel: the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the College of Policing, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Royal Statistical Society. You will notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, an emphasis on those who can add and therefore crunch statistics. There is an ongoing project between the London School of Economics and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to provide a sound academic basis for identifying the underlying demands on police time. Let us use the expertise of our academic institutions. Such work, when led by the independent panel, could make the Minister’s job even easier.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. When he and his fellow Committee members were looking at the potential balance of an independent panel, did they consider experts on serious and organised crime? It will be important to understand the impact on London’s police force of the pressures the Met is under to help to continue the battle against serious and organised crime.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend is right, and not just from the point of view of what happens in Harrow, which is very different from what happens in Wandsworth, for example. The issue of serious and organised crime has grown in the past 10 years. He is right that that needs to be properly represented as part of the review.
At this time, the Home Office has two realistic options for moving forward: it can spend the next two years on a very long consultative detailed review, run accurate data against the formula, and implement the formula changes it proposed last year after a further period of consultation; or it can go out to an independent method of checking on what is in the best interests of local police forces. Of course, there will always be winners and losers from this process, and there will be police constables and police and crime commissioners with different voices, but to leave the situation in limbo, as it is at the moment, is, in the view of the Committee, unacceptable. Doing nothing is not really an option and this is not an issue that can be parked until, say, 2019. Unfortunately, those are some of the rumours emerging in the press, whether from the Foreign Office or elsewhere.
This time, I hope the Minister will have all the information before we proceed. I hope he will have to hand the capabilities report that is being prepared by the police chiefs. Their involvement is absolutely critical. I would not like the review to start and then have to stop because there has to be another review, but we do want the process to start as soon as possible. From our point of view, the sooner the better. We want to ensure that everybody in the policing family is properly consulted, so we have no repetition of what has happened in the past.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who always speaks in a calm and reasoned way. I agree with much of what he said.
I am most grateful to Dorset police, the police force that serves me and my constituents. I would like to put on record, as I always do, my thanks, gratitude and admiration for the men and women who patrol the streets day and night. They keep us safe in our homes and safe on those streets. Our police officers have to attend some appalling incidents, often with little protection—they are not armed. And dare I pay tribute to the female officers, who are not the same size as their gentlemen colleagues? They go in fearlessly to look after us, without any thought for their own safety. I pay tribute to all the police officers in the country, and of course in particular to those in Dorset.
I am most grateful to Dorset’s police and crime commissioner, Martyn Underhill—the Minister knows him well through working and corresponding with him; I believe they have a very good relationship, which is excellent news for Dorset police—who has kindly furnished me with most of the facts I am about to divulge. As the Minister knows, Dorset has languished at the bottom of the police funding table for many years, heavily disadvantaged by the current police allocation formula that evolved in turn from the old, standard spending assessment. In last year’s discussions, the Minister described the current formula as
“complex, opaque and out of date.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 81WS.]
He was absolutely correct, but it remains effectively unchanged. Even with a review in 2009-10, nothing has ever been implemented. Dorset police remains at the bottom of the pile, a situation that cannot and must not be allowed to continue.
The current allocation formula is based on four criteria: a central allocation; a needs-based allocation; a relative resources adjustment; and formula damping, which is nothing to do with children or the changing of nappies. The very wording of the criteria is complicated enough. I hope that in looking at the formula, the Minister will make it considerably more simple.
Unfortunately for Dorset, this model is the worst of all possible worlds. First, our central allocation is historically the lowest in the country. Secondly, our needs-based allocation fails to take into account many of the issues particular to a seaside county, not least tourism on which so much relies. Thirdly, our relative resources adjustment enables us to crawl from bottom to third from bottom when the precept is added in. The current methodology for the RRA, however, is per head of population, whereas council tax from which the precept is raised is levied per household. Let us not forget that the precept is limited to 2% before a local referendum is triggered.
Fourthly, despite the formula being changed in 2010 and its effect never implemented, Dorset believes that it is still losing out to the tune of £1.9 million annually. It has never received that amount—year after year, £1.9 million. The Minister, who I know is listening intently to my speech, will be aware that £1.9 million is a lot of money for the police force in Dorset who are just trying to do their job.
While we welcomed the Chancellor’s commitment in November last year to protect police spending in real terms—that announcement was greeted with relief by police chiefs and police and crime commissioners across the country—further savings still have to be made. Worryingly, when the aggregate grant amounts were finalised by the Minister on 4 February—these assume the maximum precept available—Dorset was 0.6% worse off when compared with the dampened figures for 2015-16. It is also regrettable that after last year’s consultation, a glitch in the data has meant that any permanent change to the funding formula will be delayed for another year. I hope that when the Minister sums up at the end, we will hear more about where we stand on the future formula.
If I may, I shall put Dorset’s case to the Minister. As I have said, it is particularly disadvantaged by the current funding formula on which the funding is based. Tourism is critical to a county such as Dorset, but to date it has been ignored when assessing funding. In common with our strategic partners in Devon and Cornwall, we all find our beautiful surroundings can be a burden as well as a blessing. The current, needs-based element underestimates the pressures that the sheer number of tourists place on policing. The county’s population of 1.1 million rises considerably during the summer months. Visitors stay over 14.5 million nights and day trippers make 26.3 million outings to Dorset every year. This influx is not accounted for and neither is the nature of the county, which is divided into two—the urban part to the east and the rural to the west.
Policing in Dorset rural costs more—in time, resources and even fuel. The formula takes no account of sparsity. Neither does it cater for the high concentration of bars and clubs in towns like Weymouth and Bournemouth. However, if we look at the number of bars and clubs spread across the county as a whole, the impact on policing so far as the formula is concerned is considerably reduced. I suggest to the Minister that any formula based on a number alone would severely disadvantage our police, so it must continue to include density as well.
The nature of crime, which the right hon. Member for Leicester East touched on, must also be taken into account. Terrorism, cybercrime, people trafficking and sexual abuse, as well as the need to protect the vulnerable, are all more prevalent than they used to be and consume considerable resources, and they apply to rural Dorset just as much as to any other police area.
I shall make four suggestions to the Minister so that any new funding formula can follow these four simple principles. First, it should be stable from year to year, avoiding any fluctuations. Secondly, it should be made up of multi-year settlements to allow certainty in planning. Thirdly, it should be transparent and easy to understand—certainly easier to understand than the current formula. Fourthly, any changes should be phased in to make the transition smoother.
Finally, can we get rid of a hangover from the local authority days, when labour costs were taken into account? Today, given the existing national pay scales across police forces, there should be no difference in labour costs, except where London is concerned. However—this is a case in point—Dorset currently receives nothing, while Hampshire, across the border, receives an extra 4.6%. That simply cannot be right.
Let me end by saying to the Minister, on behalf of Dorset police, my constituents, and the constituents of other Dorset Members, that any new formula must, please, be more equitable. We are not asking for all the cake; we are just asking for a fair slice of it. Dorset police do an outstanding job, and both they and the residents whom they so ably serve need to know that all relevant factors have been taken into account when a new formula is announced.
I believe that I am the only Conservative speaker in the debate, and that I shall therefore have the great privilege of listening to the speeches of Opposition Members. I shall aim my next remark at the Hansard staff, who I know are listening to my every word. I can tell them, with great assurance, that they can probably relax for the next hour or two, the reason being that speeches that were made during the Opposition day debate on police funding are likely to be repeated. Let me explain why.
I have a message here, which was sent to all Labour Members by the shadow Home Secretary’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. It reads as follows:
“As you have already been a great help in contributing to our debates, would you be so kind as to show your support once again? There will be no need to write a whole new speech as you can reuse previous speaking notes.”
I shall now sit down, having reassured the Hansard staff that they can relax, have a cup of tea, and prepare to listen to the debate in the knowledge that what is about to be heard may have already been said.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I have always enjoyed campaigning for the Labour party in his constituency. I strongly support the idea that the next police funding formula should be based partly on the number of bars and clubs in an area, because I think that, on that basis, London would see a substantial increase in its funding.
Perhaps, as I have started off in a consensual spirit, I might invite the hon. Gentleman to agree that the number of major events taking place in a police force’s area should be taken into account as well. Wembley stadium is very close to my constituency, and requires a substantial police presence to ensure that it is policed properly and effectively.
I very much enjoyed hearing from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee, about the work that the Committee had done. If he will forgive me for saying so, I thought the most worrying part of his speech was his suggestion that, according to some reports, police forces will have no detailed or clear information about the funding formula until 2019. I hope that the Minister will be able to set the Select Committee’s concerns at rest. At the moment, the Metropolitan police has no sense of clarity about its funding for the rest of this Parliament from 2017 onwards. As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, there is huge concern about this in London, given the role of the Metropolitan police in tackling serious and organised crime, and its importance in the fight against cybercrime, the increasing importance of which the whole House acknowledges. There is a sense that rising crime in London is putting substantial pressure on the available police resources.
Two weeks ago, Europol published a major report on the scale of the illegal activity of people trafficking by organised criminal gangs across Europe and beyond. London was identified as one of the centres for trafficking people into this country and in which the criminal gangs manage their operations. This re-emphasises the point that London, through the Metropolitan police, needs as much resource as possible to tackle and bear down on serious and organised crime, particularly if we want to tackle illegal immigration and other forms of organised crime. Hon. Members will be only too aware of the terrorism threat that we face, and I gently suggest that London faces a particular challenge to be tackled through counter-terrorism measures. I hope the Minister will ensure that the funding formula takes account of the particular threat that London faces.
Richard Drax
Speaking as an ex-serviceman, I watched the atrocities in Paris and noted that the police there, who were already armed, were expected to enter the buildings immediately to rescue people. There was no time to hang around. My concern is whether we have sufficient funding and training facilities to ensure that those who find themselves in such a situation here, God forbid, are equipped to enter such buildings immediately. It costs a lot more money to equip and train people to that level of expertise.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We need to ensure that police forces work collaboratively so that there are enough trained individuals. I gently suggest to him that the Metropolitan police has particular expertise to share in this regard, and that its training facility at Hendon continues to turn out extremely highly trained and effective police officers to work in the Met and elsewhere. He is absolutely right to suggest that the attacks in Paris last year brought into sharp relief the terrorist threat that we all face here in the UK and, I gently suggest, in London in particular.
An ongoing challenge for the Metropolitan police is the fact that crime is rising again. Recorded crime is up 5% in the last 12 months. Violent crime in London is up 22%. The Metropolitan police is operating in the context of 1,600 police officer posts having gone since 2010 and almost 3,000 police and community support officer posts having been axed in the last five years. In my constituency during that period, 137 police officers, sergeants and PCSO positions have been axed. We were used to neighbourhood policing involving a sergeant, three or four police constables and three or four PCSOs. We are now reduced to just one PC if we are lucky, and one PCSO if we are very lucky indeed.
More recently, we have also seen revealed the substantial pressures on the Met, which have led to more and more police officers from the suburbs, particularly Harrow, having to be moved from the borough where they normally do their policing work to police major events or to respond to rising crime in inner London. In the past 12 months, on occasion, 22% of police officer time in Harrow has been abstracted to other boroughs—in other words, 22% of the time Harrow police officers have worked has been spent not policing the streets of Harrow, as it should have been, but policing other streets in London. The Minister may argue that that is an operational issue for the Metropolitan police chief, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, and I would accept that it is, but it is an operational issue being driven by the shortage of resources at his disposal.
Harrow is one of the safest boroughs in London, but we still face significant crime problems, there is still a significant fear of crime, and significant problems with antisocial behaviour remain. My constituents and other constituents in Harrow want to know that our police officers are out policing our streets, instead of policing streets elsewhere in London. What is particularly concerning my constituents, such that I felt it necessary to intervene in this debate, is a proposal to merge Harrow’s police force with those in Barnet and in Brent to create a tri-borough command. The proposal would axe two of the three borough commanders in this area and create just one borough commander for the three areas. Brent has a bigger crime problem than Harrow and its force has the particular challenge of managing events at Wembley stadium. Barnet also faces a very different set of challenges and, again, is an area with slightly higher crime than Harrow. My constituents fear, rightly, that if there is a tri-borough commander, Harrow police will be more easily deployed into Brent or Barnet and away from Harrow.
Given the lack of investment in Harrow police station compared with that in the Wembley and Colindale police stations, my constituents fear that if the tri-borough proposal goes ahead, there will be a question mark over the future of Harrow police station. If the Minister does not feel that he can intervene to reassure my constituents in today’s debate, and I recognise his reluctance to do that, I ask him to have a quiet word with Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe to encourage him to drop this plan for a tri-borough command and reassure my constituents that there will still be one borough commander accountable to us in Harrow for the quality and effectiveness of policing in our borough, instead of our having to share this with those other boroughs. On that point, I welcome the Select Committee’s report and look forward to the Minister’s response.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
I welcome this report, and let me start by saying that the Minister was brave to tackle the issue of police funding, for two reasons. The first is that it is always going to be difficult to resolve a funding formula without acrimony unless one has at one’s disposal sufficient resources to fund every force to the level of the best funded; clearly, those resources were not going to be available to him. The second reason is that funding a police force across the whole UK—or certainly in England and Wales—is always going to be intensely difficult, given the great diversity in policing needs across the counties of those countries. But it is right that taxpayer funds for an essential service such as the police are allocated fairly and transparently.
I agree with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), that the police need to provide evidence of the work that they actually do. Often that work will go well beyond what we understand to be traditional policing work in the office of constable. The police pick up a large amount of slack that is not picked up by other public services or private sector organisations, and they do a huge amount more than many people appreciate.
The National Audit Office published a report showing that a significant number of police forces were not aware of the demand on their own services. It is incumbent on police forces to ensure that they are aware of that demand, whether for classic policing or wider functions. They must make their demands clear to the Home Office, and, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East said, the Home Office must then make it clear to those forces what services they are actually funded to perform.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he recognise that cuts being made in other public services—in the area of mental health, for example, where there are problems in accessing beds—is putting pressure on police forces up and down the country, as in extreme circumstances they have to use cells to house people with mental health problems?
James Berry
In fact, there is more mental health funding for front-line policing than there has ever been. It is very important that the police work in tandem with clinical commissioning groups to ensure, for example, that there are nurses who can go out on patrol with them to tackle mental health issues, rather than bringing in those people to police cells—often the very worst place for someone suffering from a mental ill health episode. In my neighbouring borough of Richmond, I know that the police are already doing that in conjunction with the CCG.
There was a pause in the review of the funding formula, the financial implications of which were worked out by one police and crime commissioner. I did pause before signing up to the suggestion in our report that the likely figures should be revealed before the end of the consultation. The aim is to arrive at a sound set of principles, but it is difficult to obtain a balanced response from people who stand to lose out from an allocation based on a principle, however sound it might be, because their elected responsibility as police and crime commissioners is to maximise the amount of funding available to them to perform their statutory functions.
The funding formula needs to recognise the diversity of policing in the UK, which is very difficult when we are trying to reach a formula at a national level. Our report references the need for additional funding in areas where policing of minority communities is a prevalent issue. In my constituency of Kingston, we have the largest Korean population in Europe. We have an excellent Korean liaison officer provided by the police, which would not be needed elsewhere in the country, and they provide a vital function in ensuring a link between the police and the Korean community.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) made it clear that there are many other issues in London that provide a positive case for ensuring that the capital grant in London is protected and that the special position of the Metropolitan police is respected. The issue of diverse communities was raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East, and the issue of policing pubs and bars was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). That is plainly volume policing.
We need more police officers on the streets at kicking-out times for the pubs and clubs, which are more numerous in London than anywhere else in the country. The same applies to the threat of terrorism, which is most significant in London. I am pleased that the Metropolitan police have responded to that matter in the light of the Paris atrocities by significantly increasing the number of armed response vehicles and armed officers keeping us safe.
The same applies to the various types of crime tackled centrally on behalf of other police forces, such as online fraud. We have seen a massive explosion in such fraud over the past four or five years and although much more needs to be done and much more funding needs to be made available to deal with it anything like comprehensively enough, a large part of it is tackled by the Metropolitan police’s very impressive Operation FALCON and the City of London police’s Action Fraud. Such crime is perpetrated across the country, but is largely dealt with by the police in our two capital police forces. There is a need to protect the special status of London in any new funding formula.
Where I depart from the comments made by the hon. Member for Harrow West is where he painted a rather less than rosy picture of the state of policing in London. Although there has been a reduction in officer numbers, a less rigid approach to neighbourhood policing has allowed a more nimble model that certainly works well in my borough of Kingston and elsewhere across London. Of course, crime has dropped dramatically over the past five years and we have the police to thank for that. Even if they have lower overall numbers, they have a significantly larger proportion on the frontline and do a fantastic job that has resulted in a massive reduction in crime.
Mr Gareth Thomas
May I encourage the hon. Gentleman to oppose the merger of borough command units as well? If they succeed with Harrow, Brent and Barnet, I would have thought that a Kingston-Sutton merger might be next. Does he agree with me that that is a step too far and that the Policing Minister might usefully intervene with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to that effect?
James Berry
I know that locally there will be mixed feelings if that is proposed in south-west London, but I do know that the reforms brought in by this Government and the previous Government mean that these matters are entirely in the hands of the local police body, which in the case of London is MOPAC, or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, rather than the Policing Minister. They are an operational matter for MOPAC and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I have not seen the proposals yet, but I would certainly want to be reassured that there was no less democratic accountability and no less focus on local policing if that was going to happen in Kingston. I will wait to see the proposals and I am sure that all London MPs will have something to say if and when they are published by the Met police.
The Committee’s report records a rather unhappy period for the Home Office in which the Minister came to this House and apologised unreservedly, which was recognised in the report. I am sure that the Minister is absolutely committed to putting the situation right. The Government are to be commended for attempting to create a fair funding formula, which is recognised in the report, and that is something that previous Governments have not tried to do.
The terms of the funding formula are yet to be decided. It is no easy task; I certainly do not envy the Minister. Indeed, it is such a tricky task that both the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Policing Minister cannot be in the Chamber for this important debate. No doubt they are scratching their heads and working out what their alternative funding formula would be. I welcome the Home Affairs Committee’s report and am pleased to have participated in its production. I am sure that the Minister will give it his full consideration in deciding the eventual outcome and I am sure that although there will be some winners and some losers, the public will be able to see that the funding formula at which the Minister arrives is fair to all forces. I hope that it will protect London, along with the special and vital functions performed by the Metropolitan and City of London police to keep us safe.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate and it is not lost on me that quite a self-selecting group of MPs has turned out today, all of whom will probably try to follow a similar formula of saying that the funding formula does not respond well to the challenges of their communities. The cumulative nature of the speeches, however, should not necessarily detract from the veracity of their argument. Clearly, across this House, many of us have deep concerns about our police forces and about how they are treated under the current regime. There are winners and losers and, dare I say it, in the Chamber today there are more losers than usual.
I am no different from other Members. For me, the acid test of whether a funding formula is truly fair is Bedfordshire. We have lost 171 officers since 2010, and the number of police community support officers has halved from 108 to 53 in that period. In my community in Luton, where we face all sorts of challenges, the effect of those cuts is that neighbourhood policing is practically non-existent. In 2012 we had PCs working alongside PCSOs in Luton. In other words, we had proper neighbourhood policing. That was true of many other parts of the county too.
The old police authority, looking at the scale of cuts coming through, proposed to remove those officers and to cut PCSOs. When the police and crime commissioner was elected in 2012 he put a halt to that process and protected numbers, but, with £20 million of cuts defined, they had to go. The police and crime commissioner in Bedfordshire has said:
“The impact in Luton is no different from the rest of the county. We’ve had no choice other than to strip away preventative, problem-solving neighbourhood policing everywhere to the barest minimum because the alternative is even worse. But current projections mean we need to find £11 million savings and this may mean reducing the establishment by 44”
in the next three years.
The chief constable, Jon Boutcher, estimates that Bedfordshire needs another 300 officers even to reach the average number in police forces in the country. Why? We are the county with the fourth highest gun crime, the fifth highest serious acquisitive crime and the seventh highest knife crime figures in the country, but we get by on just 169 officers per 100,000 population. To put that in context, the average is 232 across all forces, rural and urban, and the Metropolitan police, about which we have already heard, has 388 officers per 100,000. In simple terms—it is easy to get lost in the numbers—the residents in Luton whom I represent, if treated as though they were, say, 20 minutes down the train line in north London, could expect an additional 482 officers protecting them. That is the scale of the gap.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman echo the fact that the demand for policing in Luton is not restricted to the people of Luton? It is felt by the rest of the people of Bedfordshire, including in my town, Bedford. Bedfordshire is just not large enough for the rest of the county to chip in for those additional requirements in Luton, as the hon. Gentleman is so clearly outlining. Will he emphasise to the Minister, who I am sure is hearing this, that this is not a partisan view of the funding for Bedfordshire police; this is a cross-party view of the specific needs of Bedfordshire police in the future.
Mr Shuker
I am extremely glad I took the intervention, because the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which he has made alongside me and the four other Bedfordshire MPs, both Conservative and Labour, to the Policing Minister, who has kindly given us an audience in the past and, I hope, will do so in the future to make the point that ours is essentially an urban force that is funded as a rural one. The nature of Luton in particular and of Bedford and some of the smaller areas to the north of the county, means that there is a huge disparity in levels of crime, especially the crimes that I mentioned. I will continue to make this point.
This is not a dry argument about formulae. Last week I sat in the house of my constituent Mrs Patel. She is a shop owner. Just before Christmas she was attacked, dragged to the back of her shop and cut by a man wielding a knife. That vicious attack has robbed her of her work and her confidence, and has left deep scars not just mentally but physically. There is only one thing more horrendous than the attack on Mrs Patel in her shop: it is the fact that just a few short years ago, in the same shop and in the same way, her husband was violently attacked and stabbed to death. She wants to know why the officers who used to patrol the area where her shop is and where she lives are not patrolling any more. Her son wants to know why it took so long during this violent attack for a police car to respond. He wants to know why the man who subjected her to such a terrifying attack—who put a knife against her throat and who, it was clear to her, was attempting to send her to the same place as her husband—was not apprehended in the midst of it. The debate is not, therefore, just about a formulae; it is about my constituents’ safety and their ability to live their lives without fear of threat.
The argument I advance—that fair funding for Bedfordshire is the acid test for the new police funding formula—is backed up by the context. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), Bedfordshire is an urban force funded in a rural way. Luton and, to a lesser extent, Bedford face vastly different challenges from the rest of this rural county. Despite the obvious electoral benefit of moving significant resources into urban areas, it is to the credit of the Labour police and crime commissioner, Olly Martins, that he has, given the challenges, been able to move forward with plans that still provide for a significant rural presence.
As a community, we face all sorts of challenges. We face down extremism daily. The far right—the English Defence League, Britain First and associated groups—regularly target our town. At just one protest last year, a group of about 150 or 200 drunken men led to a policing bill of £320,000, which had to be picked up locally. Of course, there is also the ongoing challenge of infiltration by extremists of the Muslim community.
We also have to defend major transport infrastructure, with London Luton airport, which is in my constituency, carrying upwards of 10 million passengers a year. The east midlands and west coast main lines pass through the constituency, as do the two principal roads between London and the north. Despite all that, Bedfordshire has to get by on similar police funding and, therefore, with similar police strength as Dorset—we have heard about that already—Sussex and Hertfordshire.
Only one thing that could undermine my argument, so let me pre-empt it: a failure since 2010 to make significant changes, efficiencies and innovations in the way in which Bedfordshire operates. In other words, we could have buried our heads in the sand and said, “The problem is purely the Government cutting spending.” However, that is simply not true.
The force has already made £25 million of savings, and it expects to make another £11 million in the coming three years. Under the leadership of the police and crime commissioner, the tri-force alliance between Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire should produce about £10 million of savings for Bedfordshire alone. A bid is in with the Home Office police innovation fund to support blue-light collaboration with fire and ambulance services. There is increased use of special constables to support Community Watch, and new technology, including smartphones, slate personal computers, automotive telematics and even drones is being rolled out to save money and police time.
At the same time, we have seen increased transparency—for example, through the use of body-worn cameras—which is vital to maintain the community’s involvement and the sense in which they are protected by the police.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman talked about the cost savings between Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire. That is about cost sharing, but does he agree that there is still the revenue that accrues to Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, which is significantly in excess of the financial resources that come into Bedfordshire? It is such a pity that we are not able to encourage those counties to draw together with us. Would he like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether there could be Home Office proposals to push forward greater collaboration and greater sharing of revenue as well as costs?
Mr Shuker
Absolutely. There is far greater space for collaboration. Equally, however, there are challenges for a force such as Bedfordshire, and I have not painted a particularly rosy picture of our finances and the challenges we face. There needs to be Government influence over these measures—these things cannot just be left at local level. Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire have had two good police and crime commissioners who have been keen to work with Bedfordshire and have made really decent strides in doing so. Ultimately, however, they are accountable to their own residents for making sure that they get the best deal possible.
I want to signal not only the innovation that has gone on in Bedfordshire but my own willingness to explore innovation on, dare I say it, a statesmanlike basis rather than merely withdrawing into oppositional politics. It is important that through this process we get the funding of Bedfordshire right, first and foremost, and then we can look at further collaboration down the line. The police and crime commissioner in this area has the third cheapest operation in the country. In his first three years in office, he saved more than £200,000 in comparison with the old police authority. This is not a case of a profligate police and crime commissioner trying to make a particular case to Government.
This issue has spanned the terms of Labour and Conservative Governments. Like the Home Affairs Committee, we welcome the Minister’s willingness to engage to get the funding formula right. We are doing all the things that we are being asked to do, and doing the right thing by our residents. Everything that would be expected of Bedfordshire is being done. The acid test of this police formula is whether Bedfordshire and other significantly disadvantaged forces are properly funded, alongside other police forces. It is now time for the formula, the Minister and the Government to do right by us.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I want to begin by stating what Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary for West Midlands police, Wendy Williams, said about the force in her most recent report. She believes that it is
“exceptionally well prepared to face future financial challenges.”
She says that it has “robust management” of its current demand, finances and plans for change, and that it has embarked on an impressive five-year change programme to transform how it intends to deliver policing. In last year’s Valuing the Police programme, which considered how forces met the challenge of the first spending review, West Midlands police was judged to be outstanding. I thank the Labour police and crime commissioner, David Jamieson, our former chief constable, Chris Sims, and our new chief constable, Dave Thompson, for doing such a good job on our behalf.
The Government have suggested that west midlands Labour MPs are wrong to complain that our police are being short-changed. The Minister thinks that West Midlands police is squirrelling away money and sitting on huge reserves. Let us look at the reserves of the largest force in England and Wales outside the Met. Not only does it serve a population of nearly 3 million people and an area of some 348 square miles, but, as HMIC notes, the area served by the West Midlands force faces the most significant challenge of terrorism and extremism outside London—a point alluded to by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry). The force is in fact a national lead in the delivery of counter-terrorism.
The force complies with the requirement to hold a general reserve—in its case, about £12 million, which can be compared with figures of about £26 million and £23 million for the Met and West Yorkshire police. Of its remaining reserves, about £10 million is set aside to address redundancy and equal pay, in a force still suffering the fall-out from the “A19” forced retirements. A further £12 million is set aside for the self-funded insurance reserve. I expect the Minister is familiar with the problems of insurance for police vehicles and how most forces hold a reserve to cover this. About £3 million is set aside for the uniforms and protective equipment reserve, which is not a high figure for the second largest force in the country; about £2.1 million for the major incident reserve; and about £18 million for the capital reserve. The Minister will be aware that his officials advised that forces should prepare for a reduction in the capital grant in this year’s settlement. I understand that the capital grant for the west midlands is now about £2.9 million—a cut of about £2 million on previous years.
Like Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary, I see a force with robust management of demand and finances, and one that has proved to be outstanding in facing up to the challenges that austerity has imposed on it. It is misleading for anyone to suggest that it is sitting on massive reserves, and I invite the Minister to look again at the figures before anyone in the Government is tempted to repeat such a charge.
On the question of the formula, may I invite the Minister to clear up the situation with regard to claims by the Conservative PCC for Northamptonshire that he has been led to expect a transfer of funding from urban forces such as West Midlands police to rural forces such as his? Last week, the Home Secretary did not feel able to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) that she was not planning such a transfer of funds. Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to come clean about his intentions?
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)
The hon. Gentleman is citing the figures with which I supplied him, so I will not contradict them. I will give my interpretation of them when I sum up. There is no funding formula change on the books, so nobody can say that they are going to be better or worse off until we come forward with the formula.
Steve McCabe
It is certainly true that the Minister gave me a glimpse of some of the figures and I am extremely grateful to him for that, but let me reiterate my point: the Conservative PCC said that he had been tipped off that there would be a transfer of funds from urban to rural forces. My constituents want to know why more money is needed to police Surrey and Northamptonshire than to police the west midlands. Why do we get less while they get more?
Mr Kevan Jones
We could ask the same question about the local government formula, which gives more money to Surrey than to deprived areas such as Durham and my hon. Friend’s area. The suspicion is that this funding formula will also be used to divert money away from Labour areas to Conservative areas.
Steve McCabe
If we look at past form, we will see that that is certainly the implication. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) implore the Minister to think again about fair funding, on the basis that a fairer funding arrangement would give the force in Dorset an extra £1.9 million a year. I remind the Minister that, under the same fairer funding formula, the west midlands would get an extra £40 million year. When it comes to the transfer of resources, I hope he will bear that in mind.
The reality is that, far from getting extra funding, over the past five years our force has had to contend with £180 million of cuts—the highest in the country. The workforce has been reduced by 3,000 and the incoming chief constable has been clear that the force will need to reorganise to “cope with the gaps”—those are his words—that it now has to carry. The mistakes in the formula mean that forces are now planning against a one-year rather than four-year profile, which will be a much more difficult challenge. I would like to hear the Minister explain how he thinks the chief constable of West Midlands police is meant to plug those gaps.
I want to be clear that I do not deride the Home Secretary for saying that volunteers with specialist skills in IT or accountancy might be useful in helping to tackle cybercrime. I am curious to know why it is necessary to create a new position of police support volunteer, rather than simply recruiting more special constables with particular skills and expertise. Is that part of a wider volunteer plan?
Mike Penning
The answer is very simple. A special constable is an unpaid but warranted officer, the same as a full-time officer. Many people do not want to carry the warrant, but they want to help their local police force. That is why there is a separate category and they are not all specials. If they were, they would all have to be warranted.
Steve McCabe
I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and perhaps he will show us the consultation that took place to show the support that exists for the new role of police support volunteer. I would welcome the opportunity to have a look at that.
To go back to funding for a second, does the Minister really consider it a triumph for his colleagues the hon. Members for Solihull (Julian Knight) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood) to claim credit for a 4.6% rise in the police precept paid by the taxpayers of the west midlands to make up for the money being given to places such as Surrey and Northamptonshire? Is that how we will be forced to plug the gap—by paying more pounds for fewer police in our area?
We are repeatedly advised that crime has fallen and therefore, by implication, the Government’s cuts are justified. I assume that the Minister does not dispute the claims of the Office for National Statistics that crime rose by 6% nationally for the year ending September 2015, and that violence against the person rose by 13%. I do not dispute that some types of crime have fallen, but I am not interested in trying to manipulate the figures to mislead anyone. Is it not important that the Government give a full picture and come clean on what the figures actually mean?
James Berry
Does the hon. Gentleman concede that that report stated that there had been an increase in the recording of crime, and that the reporting and recording of crime have improved a great deal, which explains some of the rise that has been seen?
Steve McCabe
I concede that the report actually said that certain types of sexual offences were being reported differently, which accounted for the rise in that area. The report also clearly pointed out that violence against the person had risen by 13%, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. As I said, we need clarity on the figures rather than using them to try to paint a picture that may be misleading.
There is one more point I would like to make. As I indicated earlier, the West Midlands force faces the most significant challenge of terrorism and extremism outside London, and we recently suffered a spate of gun crime in parts of Birmingham. The chief constable is set to increase the number of armed officers, and I understand that that is in line with Home Office advice. West Midlands police has about 260 armed officers, and an uplift in line with Home Office thinking would mean a further 130 officers. Where will the funding for those additional armed police officers come from, and where will the personnel come from? Will the force be expected to recruit additional officers, or will those engaged in neighbourhood policing or response policing be required to transfer to those new duties, further depleting those available for existing police tasks?
It is not bluff and bluster that we need today, but honest answers to legitimate questions and queries from people such as myself, who are genuinely worried that the formula, the funding and the rhetoric do not match the heroic efforts of West Midlands police to meet the demands of the community that it seeks to serve.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
We know that the UK Government have consulted on the funding formula for police forces in England and Wales, as they seek to simplify funding arrangements for the service. We also know that any changes in the funding arrangements have been delayed until 2016-17. Indeed, that was set out very eloquently by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). Because of Barnett consequentials, which are so important for funding services across the UK, I want to say a few words about policing in Scotland.
As many in the House will be aware, the SNP Scottish Government have carried out a reorganisation of policing in Scotland, with eight area forces merged into a unitary force in 2013. The Scottish Government now fund policing directly through the Scottish Police Authority. It is worth pointing out that that had cross-party support, although—perhaps this is in their nature—the Lib Dems subsequently withdrew their support. I would point out, if I may, that in Scotland, despite the major reform implemented by the Scottish Government, which has delivered significant savings, the Scottish Government have continued to protect their commitment to 1,000 additional police officers, all in the teeth of harsh Westminster cuts.
There is no doubt that we are having to make some very hard decisions in Scotland about the police budget, but, under the recent budget, the police revenue budget will be protected in real terms in every year of the next Parliament, with a boost of £100 million between 2016 and 2021. However, it must be said that some of the hard decisions the Scottish Government have to make are a direct consequence of the UK Government’s refusal to give Police Scotland the same VAT status as every other police authority in the United Kingdom. The same applies to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
Patricia Gibson
I can hear somebody chuntering from a sedentary position. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I would be delighted to hear what he has to say.
Patricia Gibson
For the avoidance of any doubt, I want to point out that although the Scottish Government were aware of that, it does not make it right.
Patricia Gibson
No. Perhaps the Minister will let me finish my point before he starts chuntering. The Scottish Government agreed to that because they had no choice. They are working within the constraints imposed on them by Westminster. I should say—I am moving forward now—that like so many other deals in Scotland, it was imposed by a UK Government who are detached from Scotland and neither understand nor care about Scotland’s public services. I shall leave the matter there.
Patricia Gibson
If you do not like giving fair funding formulae to Scotland, you had your chance last September, when you kicked and screamed to hold on to us. In the light of that decision last September, all we ask for is fairness. We are of course a valued and equal partner—well, let us be so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If the hon. Lady wishes to give way, she will give way. If she does not want to give way, we all have to respect that.
Patricia Gibson
I would simply add that holding an axe over someone’s head because they do not—
Mr Deputy Speaker
As you well know from the numerous—[Interruption.] I will deal with it, Mr Arkless. It will be easier if I do. As you well know, Mr Jones, that is not a point of order. If we were to rely on something that we believed not to be correct, we would never—[Interruption.] We would never, ever get through a debate. You and other Members in this House will continue to have different views. We will not always agree. On this occasion, it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr Deputy Speaker
No, no, just sit down. Let us see if we can help. I want to progress the debate. I do not want it to deteriorate.
Patricia Gibson
I was simply going to add that anyone in this Chamber would think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a unique VAT charge for Scotland’s police force and fire service—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Do not bring the Chair into the argument because the Chair will not rule on the debate. I am here to chair the debate, not to make a decision on who is right and who is wrong. I will let you continue with your speech.
Patricia Gibson
The Scottish Police Authority, uniquely and therefore unfairly, is the only police authority in the entire UK—
Patricia Gibson
No, thank you. I want to progress beyond this point.
Uniquely and therefore unfairly, the Scottish Police Authority is the only police authority in the United Kingdom that cannot recover VAT. It is therefore liable for an annual cost of £25 million, which is equivalent to almost the entire forecast savings gap. Importantly, it seems that the Treasury based its decision on the fact that single services will be funded by central Government. However, the Treasury introduced a new section in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to ensure that central Government-funded academy schools in England could recover VAT. Why is there not the same provision for the Scottish police and Scottish fire and rescue services?
Patricia Gibson
Well, I’m asking for it now. Why do I mention all this, apart from the fact that it is about fairness?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Jones, it will be easier if I can hear what is being said. I was hoping that you would speak next. We do not want to spoil that, because I want to hear from you.
Patricia Gibson
Apart from the fairness issue, I mention this matter today because this is a debate about managing budgets, and Scotland is being short-changed by the unique VAT charge that is levied on its police and fire services, taking significant funds out of those important and hard-pressed budgets. It is simply not fair. The people of Scotland take a very dim view of it indeed, as well they should.
Despite the budgetary pressures that Westminster is imposing on Scotland, with a real-terms reduction in Scotland’s budget of £1.5 billion or a 5.7% cut in the funding for day-to-day public services over the next four years as a result of the comprehensive spending review, crime in Scotland is at its lowest level in over 41 years. Violent crime is down by 55% since 2006-07.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said that the only certainties in life were death and taxation. He was certainly right about the first, but what has happened with multinational companies in the UK under successive Westminster Governments may have proven him to be a bit off the mark on the second. There is another certainty in life that Mr Franklin overlooked, which is that the one thing that is sure not to be debated during a Westminster debate on estimates is the estimates. The issue of debating the estimates may not exercise the minds of the general public, but I believe that is because it is not well known outside this place how little scrutiny there is of the spending plans of the respective Departments. The scrutiny is negligible and that has suited successive Governments. If the public knew just how inscrutable the process was, I am sure they would have something to say about it.
The supply estimates process is very technical and that is how spending is approved by Parliament, but we must remember in this debate that during the debates on English votes for English laws, the Leader of the House noted the possibility of a review of this process, while at the same time being adamant that the estimates process already allowed us to affect the Barnett consequentials. I simply say that the Procedure Committee, on which I sit, is reviewing the estimates process. We have heard from many distinguished and learned experts—far more learned and distinguished than I, if you can believe that, Mr Deputy Speaker. People from all sides of the political spectrum have argued when discussing EVEL that the estimates process is simply not fit for purpose.
Perhaps I may crave your indulgence a little longer, Mr Deputy Speaker, and point out that the way this House deals with the supply and estimates procedure is simply not sustainable. We need proper debate about the supply procedure to achieve clarity on Barnett consequentials. The scrutiny of the estimates process is simply not robust enough, and this Parliament—the so-called mother of Parliaments—has the least scrutinised spending arrangements in the western world. The process is such that the procedures simply do not give MPs a full opportunity to scrutinise Barnett consequentials of England-only, or England and Wales-only, legislation. Such scrutiny is required in a mature and healthy democracy, and a consequence of EVEL should be reform of the supply process, and that the interests of this matter be a “process of development”. That expression is a direct quote from the Leader of the House, who promised and envisaged that on 22 October 2015. Mr Speaker said that he could not conceive of any Bill that did not have direct Barnett consequentials, and that if there is such a Bill, we Scottish Members could take part in the estimates—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Lady craved my indulgence, which I have been very good and given. She answered her own question, which is that the Procedure Committee, rather than today’s debate, is the right vehicle in which to take up this issue. I have allowed some indulgence, which I think was only fair, but we must move back to the core of the debate.
Patricia Gibson
I take on board what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker, and having craved your indulgence and maximised the level of the patience that you kindly showed me, I was about to return to the police funding formula.
Any discussion of policing budgets in England must in all fairness and justice consider any effects and consequences for Scotland, not least VAT, which is a running sore of injustice in Scotland. Our police in Scotland do an excellent job, but they must have a level playing field. When considering police budgets, I ask all Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies to remember the inconvenient truth that the police in Scotland have a VAT ball and chain round their ankle, which picks money out of the pocket of the police budget to the tune of £25 million every year. No other police authority in the United Kingdom has to contend with that. Saying that Scotland accepted it is simply not good enough. Any reasonable minded person would demand that it stop, and it should stop now. After all, Scotland is supposed to be a valued and equal partner in this Union, and there is nothing equal about the VAT burden.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) prayed for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker—but indulgence was not what I was praying for. What we have just seen is what we usually get from the SNP when they turn on something that they agreed to with the victim mentality that, as I have said on numerous occasions, it has raised to a new art form in this House. We end up with the idea that somehow this measure is everybody else’s fault, but the hon. Lady’s Government agreed to it so I do not think that she can try to delude electors in Scotland that it is somehow the fault of English Members and the Government at Westminster. Apart from the sense of grievance, which we have heard on many occasions from the Scottish National party in the House in recent weeks and months, the hon. Lady did not cover anything that was relevant to the debate.
I congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its report on reform of the funding formula, and I pay tribute to its Chair for his opening speech. It has been said numerous times that this issue needs to be considered for years and in a logical way. I do not disagree with that, because we must consider in detail how we fund our police, as that is an important issue for our constituents. I do not believe that how the Government went about that had anything to do with having a serious hard look at putting forward a fair funding formula.
One of the Committee’s criticisms—it was made not only by chief constables but by many PCCs—was that the consultation was rushed. It started on 21 July 2015 and closed on 15 September, a period of eight weeks. The Minister then wrote to PCCs and chief constables on 8 October, three weeks after the consultation closed, providing detailed refinements, setting out for the first time indicative force levels and inviting further comment.
James Berry
I asked the permanent secretary why the consultation was over such a short period when he gave evidence. He said that the Government could have gone for a much longer period or tried to have the funding formula arranged before the spending review. The Department made that decision. Whether or not it was the right decision is a matter for debate, but the decision was to have the formula in place before the spending review.
Mr Jones
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly what was going on. We were to have the formula wrapped up going into the spending review, but what we are in store for is exactly what has happened in local government funding. We did not get a fair local government funding formula: we have a skewed formula that moves resources from the most deprived communities in this country to—lo and behold!—the more wealthy parts, which are represented by Conservatives.
In local government funding, just by chance—hon. Members should not ask me how this has happened— 85% of the gainers happened to be in Conservative seats. I suspect that that is what was going on with the police funding formula. The Government had not reckoned with the PCC for Devon and Cornwall, who questioned the process.
We must also put the formula against the other things that the Government and their previous incarnation, the coalition, have done to policing in this country.
Steve McCabe
Like me, I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that the Minister is a pretty straightforward guy. Given that we have ended up in this situation and that we have been unable to resolve it—it will be four years before police forces can plan a long-term budget—would not the fair thing be to remove any doubt or suspicion and subject the formula to independent scrutiny? In that way, we could all be absolutely certain that it was fair.
Mr Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend—I will come back to that in a minute—but the real issue is that what was envisaged is exactly what we have seen in local government. Under the new formula, the resources would not have been devolved to the areas that needed them, but the blame for the cuts would have been. The Government have used that formula for many years now.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) is not in the Chamber, which is regrettable. He complained about the formula and the distribution. In my local authority over the past five years, we have had five times the amount of cuts that South Dorset has had. I am fearful that the police funding formula will do the same to policing as the Government did to local government.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That was exactly what was designed in the formula. The Government were found out by the PCC for Devon and Cornwall. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said about the Minister, but he is just a small cog in the huge machine. The machine is about devolving blame but not resources to local authorities. They devolve the blame to local decision makers and point the finger at them when cuts have to be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the real villain of the piece, can stand back and say, “Not me, guv!”
Since 2010, £2.2 billion—22% of the funding—has been taken out of police budgets in this country. I do not accept that an average constituent of mine understands how police funding is arrived at. It is unique in the sense that two-thirds of it—the bulk of it—comes from central Government. Many people feel that what they pay, for example in local rates, pays for local services. We know that that is not the case.
The system is very uneven. Some authorities are able to raise more in local precept than others. Areas such as mine are unable to raise a large amount. In Durham, 55% of properties are band A, so a 2% increase in the budget would raise nothing like the amount that could be raised in Surrey or in other parts of the country. That leads me to one of the issues highlighted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement: the ability to argue that some of the lower precept local authorities can now not be bound by the 2% limit but by a £5 increase.
Again, all that does is help the wealthier areas. If we were allowed to do that in Durham, it would raise hardly anything compared with some of the more well-off forces such as Essex, Herefordshire and others. Again, that needs to be looked at.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another issue that relates to vulnerable and deprived areas, which is the top-slicing of grants? Next year, there will be a 69% rise in the top-slicing of police grants. In my area of Greater Manchester, that means a reduction of £16.2 million. Does he agree that we need an assurance that top-slicing for national projects, such as the transformation fund, does not come from local police grants?
Mr Jones
I agree. That is another sleight of hand by the Chancellor. We have only to look at local government and the new homes bonus, which is trumpeted as a great opportunity for local authorities to raise money. What do the Government do, but top-slice it in exactly the way my hon. Friend describes?
In Durham, the ability to raise extra funds from precept is limited and any future formula needs to take that into account. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor said that policing would be protected and that money would fall from heaven. I am sorry, but that is not going to happen. As my hon. Friend says, there will be top-slicing. It is clear, from what police and crime commissioners have said, that there will still be pressure this year on the police budget. Any type of formula needs to consider the local tax yield and the ability of places such as Durham to raise additional expenditure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) raised the issue of disproportionate cuts. In Durham, since 2010 we have lost 350 officers and another 25 police community support officers. Before anyone says that Durham is a profligate, fat and inefficient police force, let me say that it is the only one in the country to receive three “outstanding” ratings for efficiency from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) highlighted in his speech, great steps have been taken by police forces, working with local authorities, health services and other police forces, to drive up efficiency. I am not opposed to that—indeed, it is to be welcomed. However, police forces will come to the point where they cannot be any more efficient. At the end of the day, local people want police on the streets. They want police who are responsive and they want localised policing. That cannot be done. There comes a point in the process where the service that local people desire cannot be delivered.
We have seen the same happen in local government, where many local authorities are being pared back to delivering statutory services alone. Are we going to see a similar situation in policing? If a drive to a small state Conservative Britain is the Government’s ultimate aim, they need to be honest about that, rather than hide behind this type of funding formula.
The police community, local politicians and police and crime commissioners have lost all faith that the Home Office can conduct this review properly and fairly. I support what the Select Committee has suggested—taking it out of the hands of the Home Office. Otherwise, it will lead to a suspicion that the Chancellor is in the background and wants to use this as a way of driving out not efficiency but cash from the police service.
It is possibly a terrible thing to say, but I think it is true that if it had not been for the tragic events in Paris, we would have faced even deeper cuts to police forces. With the greatest respect, it was not down to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) or the Labour party that this U-turn took place; it was because of the Government’s fear that after the tragic events in Paris, there would be an outcry if they persisted with the cuts they intended to put through.
There is a drive for simplicity in the formula. I have always been in favour of making things as simple as possible in public policy. If making things simpler makes them less accurate and less transparent, however, I would be against it. Clearly, the interaction with other budgets is important—I mentioned mental health earlier—and it needs to be looked at. A policing element is needed. We cannot say to mental health trusts, “You will have to pay for part of your local area’s policing”. It is important that the interconnections are taken into account.
Deprivation is another crucial issue. Durham is a rural county, but under these proposals it is obviously not rural enough—or perhaps I should say that it is not blue enough—to get much money out of making representations about the formula. Rural areas such as Durham are unique. I describe parts of County Durham and parts of my own constituency as being very rural yet having urban problems. The problems would be recognised in any urban area—drug and alcohol-related crime and even organised crime, along with deprivation and the high level of crime associated with it. That is why we need to take into account not only rurality, but the realities of what is happening on the ground.
The argument about using licensed premises as an indicator of alcohol problems is, I think, complete nonsense. The public image that comes through from many of our national newspapers is that the real crime problems arise as people spill out of wine bars after a happy hour. No, they do not. People should speak to the police locally. One of the biggest issues is alcohol in the home, but how to reflect that in a formula is going to be difficult. Reflecting alcohol disturbance in an area according to the number of bars in it will not provide an answer to the problem.
Let me finish by paying tribute to the men and women of Durham constabulary, who have had a tough last six years. There are 350 former colleagues who no longer pound the beat in Durham, yet it has met the challenges when it comes to driving efficiency and interacting with the community, which has been reflected in the HMRC report that rates the force as outstanding. I pay tribute to Chief Constable Mike Barton and to the Labour police and crime commissioner, Ron Hogg. They have worked closely together not only to drive innovation and efficiency in the delivery of service, but to look at innovative ways of providing alternative justice, for example. They are making a real impact locally: when initiatives are launched, they are not always popular, but they are having a real impact on the ground.
Finally, let me touch on the relationship with other forces. I am in favour of reducing costs, and if Durham police can work with those on Teesside to form a joint firearms or dog handling unit that is great, but I have a problem with some of the proposals to merge other blue-light services that the Government are driving through. Obviously some efficiency savings can be made through the merging of back-office functions in, for instance, the fire and rescue services, but we must be careful not to repeat the imposition of cuts on those services on the grounds that their job can somehow be merged with, or massaged into, a policing role. If sensible things can be done in back offices, I am all for that, but blurring the edges when it comes to the front-line delivery of fire services, and other services, is a different matter altogether.
I hope that we have a proper look at the funding formula, and the sooner we do it, the better. Any review must be independent, because the Home Office thinks that credibility has been shredded. The one thing that I do not trust at all is an arrangement whereby the Conservative Government and the Chancellor are behind this, driving forward not a fairer funding formula but a formula that will divert resources from areas like mine and into leafy Tory suburbs.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak today. I did not speak in the recent debate on police funding, but many concerns were expressed by Labour Members then, and those concerns remain. There is much uncertainty and worry in police forces across the country about current and future funding.
It was just a few months ago, in November, that Members were in the Chamber making a case for policing to be protected from the ravages of Tory cuts. Labour Members joined others, and people throughout the country, in raising concerns about policing cuts generally. The Government had originally planned to cut police budgets by more than 20%, but at the last moment the Chancellor announced, in his spending review statement to the House, that there would be no cuts, adding that there would be real-terms protection for police funding. However, it seems that the Tories are still intent on cutting police funding. Today we are discussing reform of the police funding formula. The Government may have tried to deflect attention from what they are doing by saying that there will be no cuts, but the fact remains that the level of police funding to which the Government are committed for the next few years will go down.
We know that the Tories had to cancel the last review of the police funding formula last autumn because they had miscalculated, using the wrong figures. Last week, Labour pleaded with the Government to think again before imposing further cuts and forcing local people to pay more to make up for them, because they are expecting police forces to raise extra money in local taxes to compensate for those Tory cuts. No matter how the Government try to dress things up, a cut is a cut. What we need is a fair funding formula—a formula that is fair to the less affluent, high-need, high-crime areas—but we are not being given that now.
I speak as someone who grew up with a huge amount of respect for the police, and for the job that they do. I worked closely with neighbourhood policing teams for many years in my previous role as a county councillor, and I have always appreciated the professionalism of police officers who put their lives on the line every day. Unfortunately, under this Government we have seen the break-up of the neighbourhood policing model that was the last Labour Government’s achievement. Neighbourhood policing brought police officers out of their stations and into communities, building up trust and bringing down crime, but the positive steps that were taken under Labour are being reversed.
If the Government proceed with their cuts, and unless a proper funding formula is developed, matters will become worse. In the last six months alone, a further 1,300 police officers have been lost; that is the equivalent of a whole force in some areas. The Tories had already cut police funding by 25% during the last Parliament, and the most recent losses bring the total reduction in the number of police officers to a staggering 18,000 since 2010. Officers are already paying the price for the Government’s actions. The reduction in their numbers has put greater pressure on those who remain, who have found their workloads soaring and workplace pressures intensifying. For instance, 27% are working more than 49 hours a week, which is over the legal limit.
Crime might have fallen in some areas, and the police are trying to reduce crime, but policing is about much more than whether crime is falling. It is about visible policing and providing reassurance to the residents of our communities. We also know that crime is changing, rather than simply falling. When the 6 million cybercrimes and online crimes are included in the official crime statistics, crime levels nearly double.
With the most serious and violent crimes on the rise again, this is the worst possible time to cut police funding, but that is what this Chancellor is doing. He said he would protect police budgets, but we are facing more years of cuts. Make no mistake, the police service is under pressure and the morale of police officers is at a very low ebb. Police officers I have spoken to feel that the Government do not understand or appreciate the passion and commitment that they have for the job they do. We should be focusing on cutting crime, not on cutting the police.
One of the few areas to have seen an increase in the policing family is the police and community support officers in Wales. Since 2010, South Wales police has increased the number of PCSOs by 77 and Gwent has seen an increase of 35. This is due to funding support from the Welsh Labour Government, who have supported a total of 500 PCSOs across Wales despite significant cuts to their own budget by the Tory Government. My constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is covered by two forces: South Wales on the Merthyr side and Gwent on the Rhymney side. In the next financial year, South Wales police will see a real-terms cut of £3 million and Gwent a cut of £1.5 million. The need for support from the police service is significant in many of the communities that I represent, but with this level of cuts, that support is under threat.
As I have said, this is not the time to be making cuts to services such as policing. The safety of our communities is too important to put at risk. The people who live in our communities need adequate protection from the police service, but the lack of a fair funding formula will put that at risk as it will not provide the police with the resources that they need to do the job.
James Berry
Will the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the shadow Home Secretary’s comment, made on the Floor of the House, that the police could take a funding cut of 10%?
Gerald Jones
That was not the situation that the shadow Home Secretary described, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows that. He is trying to misrepresent what was said. The Conservatives were talking about cuts of 20%-plus at that point, so let us get this into perspective.
Mr Kevan Jones
Non-ring-fenced Departments were asked by the Chancellor to find cuts of up to 40%. If such cuts had gone through in the Home Office, policing budgets would certainly have been cut by more than 10%.
Gerald Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think we are seeing a lot of smoke and mirrors from the Conservative party. In closing, I urge the Government to address the concerns that I have outlined, and to provide the fair funding formula that the police need to do the job that we ask them to do.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I took part in the debate last week, and I will repeat something that I said at the time. I want to put on record again a big thank you to the staff and officers of Merseyside police. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has today given the House a measured and generous analysis and exposition of the funding formula debacle. I am not of a mind to be as generous as him, however, because the tensions that that created right across the police service are still being felt. There is a fear that we shall find ourselves in a similar situation again and that it will be just as unfair and just as much of a debacle.
I should like to apologise in advance to either the Home Secretary or the Home Affairs Committee. I say that because one or other of them is trying to sell the House a very large pup. Last week, the Home Secretary led the House to believe that the police service was awash with money, regardless of the review. She said that in any event it is the quality of police officers, not the quantity, that counts—I particularly remember that one. She said, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham):
“When the right hon. Gentleman calls on the Government to provide real-terms protection for the policing budget, I can happily tell Members that we have done just that.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 389.]
Of course, I heaved a sigh of relief at that reassurance—after all, she has the responsibility for keeping the Queen’s peace, and I am sure she would not want to let Her Majesty down in that regard. However, the Home Affairs Committee report appears to take a different view from that of the Home Secretary, saying:
“The real terms reductions in central grant to police forces as a whole has only varied between 24% and 26% since 2010/11…However, the range for real terms reductions for individual forces was from 12% for Surrey to 23% for Northumbria and West Midlands, the two forces most reliant on government grant.”
The Home Secretary is therefore being proactively selective, with the air of an amnesiac about her, and it is a disingenuous approach if ever there was one.
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice told us that the West Midlands police and crime commissioner—this, to some extent, reinforces the point my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) made—had
“not spent part of the £153 million reserve in the West Midlands”—[Official Report, 24 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 412.]
Again, my relief was palpable, as the Minister had pulled the Home Secretary’s chestnut out of the fire. Clearly, the implication was that police services right across the country had secret stashes of cash, gleaned from the ill-gotten gains of chief constables.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does what my hon. Friend is suggesting not reiterate that we are seeing something that is happening across government? The same arguments are being used by those in the Department for Communities and Local Government when they attack councils for having large reserves, even though a reserve can be spent only once and in cases such as Durham’s a lot of those reserves are already earmarked?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, but I am too much of a gentleman to call what the Government are doing claptrap. Clearly, the implication being given was that all this money has been stashed away: serving officers have, with malice aforethought, picked the pockets of the poor, unsuspecting council taxpayers, with the nefarious intention of protecting them from—wait for it—crime! Of course, what the Minister, mimicking the amnesia of the Home Secretary, forgot to mention was that a comprehensive public report brought before the West Midlands police and crime panel on 15 October last year by the PCC’s chief finance officer clearly set out that:
“This report details by 2020 it is forecast over 80% of the WMPCC’s reserves will be used to support the MTFP—
medium-term financial plan—
“transformation programmes or other initiatives.”
Therefore, out of a turnover of two thirds of a billion pounds, the West Midlands PCC will, by 2020, have reserves of about £27 million, or just 4.5%.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend comes from a local government background, so does he also find it remarkable that, in respect of not just the Home Office, but local government, the Government seem to mix revenue and capital willy-nilly? Like me, he knows from his time in local government that one of the cardinal sins was using capital for revenue purposes, unless it was for investment to save—
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend just set out clearly the jiggery-pokery finances of this Government. That is what it is—it is hocus-pocus. By 2020, this Minister, or his successor, will no doubt be accusing the West Midland police of flying by the seat of its pants for having such small reserves. In any event, the West Midlands PCC was already doing what the Minister was, post-hoc, suggesting that he should do. Evidently, there is a contagion of disingenuity in the Home Office.
More shocking were the contents of the Home Affairs Committee report of December 2015. In last week’s Opposition day debate on police funding, we had this Minister refusing to take interventions, with the exception of those from one or two of his own Members, in full obsequious mode. I am afraid that his insouciant and dismissive attitude towards Members of this House has antecedents—in other words, he has form.
Mike Penning
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is completely unacceptable. I seek your guidance on how I can correct the record. The reason I took interventions when I did—and I did take some from the Opposition—is that the shadow Home Secretary spoke for 35 minutes and destroyed the debate. How do I get that on the record?
Peter Dowd
Let me repeat that the right hon. Gentleman’s insouciant and dismissive attitude towards Members of this House has antecedents—in other words, he has form. It extended to last year’s police funding formula consultation process, which was widely agreed to be an unmitigated disaster—there are no other words for it. The Home Affairs Committee said:
“It is regrettable that the Minister proceeded on this timescale, and it is unfortunate that he accepted that advice from officials. It is not surprising that, as a result, the process ended in chaos”—
I repeat that police funding in Britain ended in chaos—
“with an Urgent Question in Parliament and the decision to suspend the whole review.”
James Berry
The reason for that, as is clear in the Home Affairs Committee’s report, is that a civil servant made a fundamental error in calculations, for which the Minister came to the House to apologise and for which he was commended in this report.
Peter Dowd
Yes, and made Inspector Clouseau look like a completely competent professional. The Committee, not content with giving the Minister one caution, went on to give him a warning.
“The Home Office stated on multiple occasions throughout this process that it wished to engage with police forces but then created a process which made it impossible for them to do so.”
Question 20 in the police formula review consultation document asked:
“How long should the transitional period last? Please explain your answer.”
What is telling was the response from Merseyside’s PCC, Jane Kennedy—among other roles, she was a former Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office with responsibility for security and the justice system, and is someone who knows a thing or two about these matters—who said:
“Given the lack of detail with regard to the magnitude of the proposed changes I am unable to give an informed response.”
It was a former Minister with responsibility for security who said that to Her Majesty’s Government. There was no political point scoring and no histrionics, simply a factual and unambiguous response to a flawed consultation process from a PCC concerned about the service for which she is responsible and for which she is held accountable.
There are many other even more interesting nuggets in the Committee’s report, but I will not take up the time of the House regurgitating them, because, as with any regurgitation, it is not a very pleasant experience for those watching, including for the right hon. Gentleman.
The reality in this sorry affair is that I am not too concerned about the embarrassment of Members on the Government Benches who felt the need to produce such a damning report—consensus was the word used—or the embarrassment of the Home Secretary or the Policing Minister for that matter. What I am concerned about is how the Government’s botched, incompetent and chaotic formula review created uncertainty in communities across the country and the effect that that had on the morale of police officers of all ranks, not to mention the exasperation caused to any number of police and crime commissioners of all political hues. Rural areas and communities have expressed concerned about the numbers of police officers because of the sparsity factor. That puts paid to the claim by the Home Secretary that size does not matter. How many of her colleagues on the Government Benches would voluntarily agree to a reduction in police numbers in their own areas?
Presumably, the logic of the Home Secretary is that they would be falling over themselves volunteering to take police officers off the street. There would be few takers for that—so much for the argument about quality over quantity. I also wonder how many Members on the Government Benches are prepared to call public meetings in their constituencies trumpeting the need for fewer bobbies on the beat because the Home Secretary thinks that quality, not quantity, counts. How many Government Members have the courage of the Home Secretary’s convictions? Does the Home Secretary have the courage of her convictions? What a great slogan in Maidenhead: “Vote for me and have fewer police officers on the streets.” After all, it is quality, not quantity, that counts. If the Home Secretary is so taken with having fewer police officers, let her have fewer in her constituency and not in mine. If the Policing Minister is so enamoured with having fewer police officers from Apsley to Woodhall, he should put it on his website for all to see. Perhaps he could have a photo in his gallery or a spot the difference competition before and after the implementation of a new botched policing formula.
Patricia Gibson
The hon. Gentleman has pointed out, quite sensibly in my view, that nobody would volunteer to have fewer police on the streets and nobody would volunteer to have less money spent on policing, yet that is exactly the accusation that has been made against the Scottish Government in this Chamber today—that we volunteered to give away £25 million a year to the Treasury.
Peter Dowd
Let me return, if I may, to the Select Committee’s report. The outstanding understatement in a report packed full of understatements was the following:
“The outcome for police funding in the Spending Review came as a surprise to many interested parties, including the policing community.”
I suspect that it came as a surprise to the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister, as well.
Finally, what would be most surprising is the unbridled ability of the Home Secretary, aided and abetted by the Policing Minister, to botch the review, leading to uncertainty, a reduction in police numbers and quality, and a serious threat to resilience and, ultimately, to the safety of the public from Maidenhead to Merseyside via Hemel Hempstead and many other communities across the country. The message from this House is quite simple: the police service is not safe in Tory hands.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
I am delighted to see you in your place, Mr Speaker. May I assure you that this has been a very, very long afternoon? Since I was elected nine months ago, I seem to have come to debates with time limits of three, four or five minutes, and it was always my ambition to take part in an open and wide debate, but that opinion was unfortunately formed before my experience this afternoon.
Let me start by echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) I too want to mention something that has been missed in many of the submissions across the House today. Our police, on both sides of the border, in every borough, county and region, do the most incredible job. We owe our safety and the fact that we can walk out of our front door and feel safe to the men and women in our police services, as well as other staff. Politics aside, we should all recognise that.
Mr Speaker, you will no doubt be aware that policing in Scotland is devolved, so many of the substantive arguments that have been heard across the Chamber during this very long afternoon have not had direct application to Scotland. I do not want to ponder many of them, but Scotland is affected by the level of Westminster spending and therefore the potential Barnett consequentials that Scotland will receive, or otherwise, to run the police force we want to run. It is remarkable, given the cuts that Scotland has faced, that we have given and maintained a commitment to 1,000 extra police officers on our streets since 2007, in stark contrast to the almost 20,000 police officers that have been lost across the UK. If I have one message to those on both sides of the House, it is that whatever funding formula they come up with and whatever departmental spending they agree over the next four years, the focus should be on increasing and maintaining the number of frontline police officers, which would obviously allow us to continue to do the work that we are doing.
Despite my cynicism about what went on in the past three hours, there have been some memorable speeches, none more so than that from the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who gave a succinct, detailed and clear summary of the police funding position. I was very grateful for the clarity with which he delivered that speech.
I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for Hansard. I do not think that they will have their work cut out for them this evening finalising the draft of today’s proceedings. I was also very interested to hear him tell his Government and the House that the police funding formula as constituted does not seem to be working for the people of Dorset or the officers who work there.
The atmosphere in the Chamber was lifted briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I invite interventions and corroborate her comments on the VAT position in Scotland. It seems to me, and it will seem to the Scottish people, that Scotland being treated fairly gets this Chamber greatly exercised. That will not be lost on the people of Scotland.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) did the strangest thing. He made an intervention, which was answered, and then raised a point of order, so the Government could intervene on my hon. Friend.
Richard Arkless
I know that in Scotland the distinction between blue and red is becoming increasingly blurred, but that was ridiculous.
Last week we had a debate in the Chamber on the police, and there was a difference of opinion between the two sides. The debate was predicated on the words of the Chancellor in the autumn spending review on 25 November:
“there will be no cuts in the police budget at all. There will be real-terms protection for police funding.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]
The Opposition say that that was not true and that there was a real-terms reduction. The Government say that there is a real-terms reduction of 1.4%, but that will be offset by the ability of local authorities to raise the council tax precept portion that can go towards police funding. It seems to me that it is not this place that is protecting the real-terms allocation for police funding, but the poor council tax payers across England and Wales who are doing so.
From a Scottish point of view, unless I have got this dramatically wrong, we in Scotland will not get Barnett consequentials from an increase in council tax spending. Perhaps the situation was not made as clear by the Chancellor on 25 November as it ought to have been. In terms of democracy, millions of people watch the autumn statement. The public and Members of this House should be able to rely on every word that comes out of the Chancellor’s mouth at the Dispatch Box. Clearly, whether by omission or by misunderstanding, it has turned out that his words were not 100% accurate. That is plain wrong.
I have nothing further to add—I know that the Policing Minister will be absolutely devastated at that assertion—other than to request that whatever the House agrees in relation to police funding, it should please be protected it in real terms. Cybercrime, terrorism and a new range of challenges make that essential. Scotland will then have more money to spend on police. It will keep our streets and our children safe, and that is one of the core responsibilities of all Members.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. My hon. Friends have detailed the impact of cuts to police funding on their constituents and their police forces. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) for reminding us that the police are trying to do an incredibly difficult job despite the cuts and pressures that they face. The whole House thanks them for that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) was extremely helpful in setting the broader context for the debate, which could not take place at a more important time. Any debate about police funding must be put in the context of the crucial role that the police play, protecting children and vulnerable groups, getting justice for victims and keeping communities safe. As the Home Affairs Committee report says,
“The demands on the police are many and various”.
To give just one example, through my own campaigning work I have found out more and more about the scale of child abuse in the UK. It is truly shocking. The most recent data from the NSPCC estimate that half a million children are being abused. Reports of domestic and sexual violence are increasing across the country.
Mr Kevan Jones
I commend my hon. Friend for her work in that area. Does she agree that that puts pressure on regional forces such as Durham’s, which is involved in Operation Seabrook, investigating abuse at the Medomsley detention centre—an operation that has cost more than £2 million?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue, which I have tried to raise in this Chamber. Such cases are incredibly expensive and incredibly important, and that work needs to be done, but there is no additional money, so the money is coming from the existing pot. The Government really need to look seriously at funding those cases.
The numbers of serious and violent crimes are soaring. In the last year alone there has been a major increase in knife crime, which is up 9%, and a 27% rise in violent crime, including a 14% rise in murder. Devastatingly, 50% of those cases close without a single suspect ever being identified.
Central Government funding for police forces was cut by a quarter in the last Parliament, resulting in the loss of 18,000 police officers—12,000 of them operational front-line officers. Thousands of PCSOs and civilian staff have also been cut. We have ever fewer police officers trying to do ever more.
The value of local neighbourhood policing, with officers working in partnership with local authorities and other agencies to tackle the challenges we face, cannot be overestimated. However, neighbourhood policing teams—a proud legacy of the Labour Government—are being eroded. Serious crimes are up, but victims are being let down.
Despite all that, and after cutting the police by 25% in the last Parliament, the Government were threatening to cut at least a further 22% right up until the night before the comprehensive spending review. We were on the brink of catastrophe, but the Chancellor U-turned under pressure from Labour, the public and the police [Interruption.] And London MPs.
The Chancellor then made a promise:
“I am today announcing that there will be no cuts in the police budget at all. There will be real-terms protection for police funding. The police protect us, and we are going to protect the police.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]
That promise to the public and the police has been broken. The Chancellor said he would protect the police, but police budgets are still being cut. Police force funding for 2016-17 has not been protected in real terms. Budgets are being cut again—for the sixth year in a row—at a time when the country faces increased risks.
Figures from the House of Commons Library show that the overall Home Office grant to the police next year will not be protected in real terms or even in cash terms. The Library’s analysis shows that forces in England and Wales will receive £30 million less in cash—a cut worth £160 million in real terms. Even the extra council tax that Tories expect local people to pay to make up for the cuts will not compensate for that.
Richard Drax
I want to make a small point, which I hope the hon. Lady will be coming to. What would the Labour party do were it in government? We can all criticise various aspects of this issue, but what is the Labour party’s position on the formula? How would the Labour party help a constituency such as mine get a fairer amount of money?
Sarah Champion
I wait for that day four years from now. If the hon. Gentleman gives us four years to plan for it, we will come back to him with a proper answer.
Mr Shuker
I can assure my hon. Friend that that was not at the forefront of my mind. She talked about the need for fair funding from the Government and at a local level. One issue I am aware of in Bedfordshire is that when people seek to introduce a referendum to make sure we have better funding locally, the police and crime commissioner must apparently be completely neutral. We could compare and contrast that with the situation in the European referendum, where the Government certainly are not neutral.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I am not going to get involved in the EU debate at this point, but parity across all our systems is something we should be trying for.
The police and crime commissioner for my force, South Yorkshire, has said:
“The Government recently announced that there would be no cuts to police funding next year. This was a little misleading. What has now become clear is that the police grant will be reduced by £1 million and there will be no provision for inflation—such as increases in salaries and additional demand on police services, which comes to about £7-8 million.”
The Tory police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall said:
“policing still faces considerable challenges and some tough decisions as we move forward. We estimate that, to break even, we will need to save £13million over the next four years; only then with further savings can we plan to invest in transformation to address the emerging threats with less resources.”
These cuts mean that thousands more officers, PCSOs and police staff will still go. The more serious and complex crimes seen in the 21st century are expensive and time-consuming to investigate, prosecute and prevent, such as child sexual exploitation, terrorism and cyber-crime. These 21st-century challenges demand a modernised, more responsive and better equipped police service, not a smaller one.
Equally crucial is co-operation with other agencies, yet as they too come under strain, the police yet again pick up the pieces. The Home Affairs Committee’s report emphasises that
“demands on the police were increasing due to cuts to other public services.”
As local authorities deal with relentless Government cuts, they are struggling to provide specialist support to victims, to engage in preventive work with communities, and to protect vulnerable groups, particularly out of hours. Sara Thornton of the NSPCC told the Committee that the police were being used
“more and more as society’s safety net”
and that
“after 4 o’clock on a Friday the police are around, but nobody is ever very clear about who else is around”.
In the face of these massive and growing challenges, not only are police budgets being cut, but cuts are being made with characteristic unfairness to less affluent regions. High-need, high-crime areas are shouldering the burden of cuts. West Midlands and Northumbria police forces, for example, have been hit twice as hard by cuts as Surrey. The current complex formula for funding the 42 police forces in England and Wales has been called
“unclear, unfair and out of date”
by Ministers. We therefore welcomed it when last year, under pressure from the police and from Labour, the Policing Minister finally agreed to change the formula. However, instead of improving the situation, what followed was a chaotic, opaque, unfair and ultimately completely discredited review of the existing formula. In the words of the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, as quoted in the report,
“given the fundamental importance of this policy to the safety and security of communities across the country we do not feel that consultation has been carried out in a proper manner”.
The review faced two unprecedented threats of legal action by forces. It was roundly criticised by police and crime commissioners from across the political spectrum. Unbelievably, the shambolic review ultimately had to be totally abandoned because the Home Office miscalculated funding for forces, using the wrong figures. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East for giving examples. The data error meant that funding for forces had been miscalculated by as much as £180 million for some areas. As the report says, the omnishambles
“would be amusing if it were not so serious”.
It goes on:
“It is deplorable that Home Office officials made errors in calculating the funding allocations for police force areas…As a result of the Home Office’s error, confidence in the process has been lost; time, effort, resources and energy have been wasted; and the reputation of the Home Office has been damaged with its principal stakeholders.”
The mistake meant not only that forces made budgets for the next financial year based on incorrect funding figures, but that they now only know their funding for just one year, unlike local government, which got a four-year settlement. As even Tory PCCs have pointed out, this makes it extremely difficult for forces to make long-term financial plans and innovate on the basis of an unusual single-year settlement, particularly in the context of further budget cuts. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said, to call it a shambles would be charitable.
What have the Government done to rectify the situation? They have secretly consulted their own Tory PCCs, promising to channel funding to those PCCs, who get disproportionately more. Conservative police and crime commissioner Adam Simmons writes in his budget:
“The new funding formula proposals have been deferred to 2017-18…it is not clear at this stage how this will affect the government funding. However, it is expected that this will transfer funding from the urban areas to the more rural, and Northamptonshire may benefit”.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for pointing that out. Will the Policing Minister confirm whether this will be the case? In addition, what commitments will he give to this House, and to the police, that they will never again be insulted with a sham consultation like that seen last year on something so important and so crucial to the safety of communities as police funding? Our police service needs a fair funding formula and a fair funding settlement. This Government have offered them nothing of the sort.
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)
May I welcome the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to the Dispatch Box? I think she may be there for some time, because she delivered a much better speech than those delivered by the shadow Policing Minister and the shadow Home Secretary last week.
I agreed with some of the hon. Lady’s comments, particularly her closing remarks about how this country and the police deserve a fair funding formula. The reason that did not happen under 13 years of Labour, and probably even before that, is that it is very difficult to achieve. As I have previously said from this Dispatch Box, there is no doubt that there will be winners and losers if we change the formula. As the Home Affairs Committee has said, however, the existing formula is opaque and we desperately need to change it—and fairly.
Mike Penning
In a moment. I just want to make a little progress and then I promise that I will give way, because I am going to refer to the west midlands at length.
It is fair to say that policing is undergoing continuous change and that it has changed considerably even in the past five years. The National Audit Office has rightly indicated that the way in which we are making the reporting of crimes more effective and accurate should not be used in an attempt to say that crime has suddenly risen. Since 2010, for lots of different reasons, there has been a reduction in crime, but there have been some increases in the reporting figures in the past year. We accept that and are looking at it very carefully, but the NAO made a specific point. In some areas, it is absolutely brilliant that more people have the confidence to come forward to report crimes such as sexual abuse and domestic violence, which historically have not been reported as much as we would have liked and have probably not been treated as correctly as we would have wanted by police forces around the country. I think that most people would accept that.
Steve McCabe
The Policing Minister has said that achieving a fair funding formula is incredibly complex, and he has acknowledged that it is beyond the competence of his civil servants. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has said that he is seeking fair funding, as are the rest of us. Given the difficulties, doubts and suspicions, will the Minister give a commitment that any future fair funding formula will be subject to proper independent scrutiny and analysis, so that we can all have confidence in it?
Mike Penning
I will come on to the report’s recommendations. Whether we use the organisations referred to by the Home Affairs Committee or others, it is crucial that we have the confidence to say, “This is where we are, this is what we think is right and the chief constables are with us.” I reiterate, however, that whenever the contents of a pot of gold are dispersed, there are winners and losers. At the end of the day, though, we must make sure that it is fairer.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister is right to raise the important issue of the pressures put on police forces by historic abuse cases. Durham faces a £2 million-plus bill for Operation Seabrook. Is it right that such a complex investigation, which is clearly needed, should fall on Durham? Should there not be a central pot to refund it for such operations?
Mike Penning
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Some forces have much larger percentage costs for historical cases and they have an opportunity to apply to the Home Office for assistance. It is right and proper that the investigations are done by the forces. Some investigations were not done correctly early on, which is even more reason why we should address them. I know about the inquiry referred to by the hon. Gentleman and I am more than happy to look into it. A piece of paper will probably be passed around my back while I am speaking, but I do not think I have had a request from Durham.
On the subject of Durham, it has done fantastically well, hasn’t it? If someone from the moon had landed here this afternoon and listened to this debate—some people probably wish they had travelled in the other direction—they would have thought that Durham had really struggled, so let us say from the outset that it has done fantastically well. It has even done really well in the latest independent reports on police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy. It has been rated outstanding on nine of the 12 points, good on another two, and the other one, which relates to a serious error on stop and search and the use of a Taser, requires improvement.
The force has done all that with a reduced workforce and a higher percentage of officers on the front line. It has experienced a substantial reduction in numbers, from 1,705 to 1,057, but it has massively reduced crime, including during this year. When the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, I am sure that he will praise the police in Durham, as I have done.
Mr Jones
The Minister cannot have been listening to my speech, in which I praised the great leadership of the chief constable, Mike Barton, and the Labour PCC, Ron Hogg—and, more importantly, the men and women of Durham police. That is no reason why the force should not be fairly funded, however. It has done things well, but that has not been achieved easily. Clearly, it would not have got a fairer funding formula under the Government’s proposals.
Mike Penning
Durham has done more with less, and it has done so excellently. I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely, as I have said at the Dispatch Box on more than one occasion, that we need a way of funding our police that is fairer than the existing formula. He has said on more than one occasion today how difficult things have been for Durham. He is quite right to say so, and things have been difficult for other forces as well. I believe in giving praise where praise is due, and Durham has done fantastically well. It has reduced crime with fewer police but a higher percentage of officers on the front line than in 2010, and that is great.
Mike Penning
I will not give way now, but I will do so in a minute. Most of the debate was not about the future funding formula; it was about the previous funding formula and previous austerity measures. There was a degree of concern—from, I accept, Members on both sides of the House—about how that was done and about how we should go forward.
Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), have asked about the uplift in firearms capability. We have put £36 million out there, and there will be more to come. It is separately funded. Hon. Members have raised the issue of counter-terrorism, which is also funded separately from the formula.
I accept that in Bedfordshire, as the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) said, there are some real issues with the funding formula, and I have met him and other Bedfordshire Members to talk about that. There is more that could be done. Bedfordshire was given counter-terrorism money but did not manage to spend all of it. That is really interesting, in view of the fact that it was given the funding for that specific use. The percentage of warranted officers who are off duty because they are not fit for operational duties is 10%. That percentage is high for such a small force, and it is, understandably, a concern. I accept that there is work that we can do together.
Peter Dowd
Does the Minister acknowledge—let us use that word—that given what happened with the review of the police funding formula and its withdrawal, there is deep concern that the same thing should not happen again and a fear that the formula will not be fair? That is the concern.
Mike Penning
Opposition Members can exacerbate that fear, but they cannot deny that I came to the House and ate an awful lot of humble pie because my officials got things wrong. As a Minister of State, I took responsibility for that, and we will go forward to make sure that we get it right. I repeat that there will be winners and losers; that is always going to be the case. Some people will be happier than others.
Mike Penning
I give way to the hon. Member for Luton North—Luton South; my apologies.
Mr Shuker
We are only neighbours; it is fine. I accept that Bedfordshire, like all forces, will not be perfect in every respect, but does the Minister concede, on a point about which I have heard him speak before, that Bedfordshire does not have masses of reserves lying around that it can use to tackle problems? I have heard, for example, that only £2.7 million is unallocated in the four-year medium-term plan. To suggest that in some way—physician, heal thyself—we can fix it without fixing the funding formula would be unfair.
Mike Penning
I have not suggested that. I have said time and again at this Dispatch Box and to the PCC and the chief constable that Bedfordshire does need help. That is why I put the deep dive into Bedfordshire, as well as into Lincolnshire, to see exactly what was going on. Fantastic work has been done in collaboration with the other local forces. The capabilities review, which I will come on to, is crucial in ensuring that many of the forces get the sort of help they need.
Every time I stand at this Dispatch Box, I say how proud I am to be the Policing Minister for England and Wales, but I have never been prouder than I was yesterday at Didcot. We have all seen Didcot on our TV screens, but only when I went there did I understand the scale of the industrial accident—I use that word advisedly, because a police and Health and Safety Executive inquiry is still going on. Half the building has collapsed. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who are injured and the families of those who died. One family have had their loved one given back to them, but three of the bodies—I have to use that word, because we are in the recovery phase at the moment—are still underneath all the rubble. It will be some considerable time before it is safe to reclaim them so that their families can bury them and, understandably, grieve.
When I was at Didcot yesterday, I met some very young officers who arrived at the scene first. I can only imagine, even with the experiences I had in my different roles before I came to this House, what went through their minds. They went in one direction when lots of people were going in the other direction. There was a dust cloud, so at one stage they were not even sure where the incident was. There were lots of injured people and lots of people who needed help. The work that took place and the unbelievable teamwork that went on across the blue line during the incident was reported to me yesterday.
On behalf of the House and the country, I said thank you to every one of the emergency workers and personnel who were there, even down to the volunteer groups that came with tea and coffee. That happened literally within minutes because of the agreements that they had with the local police under the gold command. I said two things to them. I said that I was enormously proud, as Minister with responsibility for policing and fire issues, to be with them—there were also members of lots of other agencies—because they had done fantastically well. I also told them that what they saw on that afternoon would live with them for the rest of their lives. It was not physical injuries that I was talking about, but mental injuries.
We have touched on mental health today. The emergency services tend to be very macho, as do our armed forces, but post-traumatic stress can touch everybody—sometimes a couple of days later, sometimes a couple of years later and sometimes many years later. I have friends who served in the Falklands who have only started to suffer in the last couple of years. Our thoughts must be with those people.
A key thing that happened at Didcot—this is mentioned in the report—is that capabilities from other forces came to help. It was not just the traditional mutual aid that we saw in London a couple of weeks ago for the Syria conference, when armed response units came from all around the country, including from Northern Ireland—I was very proud to see the men and women in the green uniform on the streets of London. We must ask what we can learn from that. Are there lessons to be learned for our control rooms? There were lots of 999 calls. The police got the initial call, but there were also calls to the fire service, and there was a slight difference in terminology.
That shows why it is crucial in the funding review that we get the chiefs to tell us where their capabilities will sit. It looks quite simple initially: will they be in the force, whether it be Merseyside, Hertfordshire or the Met, in the regional organised crime units or at the National Crime Agency? Actually, it is much more complicated than that. As we touched on earlier, the forces have been doing work on joint capabilities for some considerable time. When we look at the new formula and at where the capabilities will be delivered from, it is crucial that we do not damage the work that has been done. We must not tell the forces to tear up the very close work that they have done and say, “You can’t do it there. It has to be done under the ROCU.” It is not for the Policing Minister to do that.
Alongside the funding review, the chief constables are coming forward with their own capabilities review. I cannot today give the House and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee a timescale and date for the start of the new consultation, because I need that review to have reported to me. It would be ludicrous if I announced a new review and people said to me, “We will structure it this way” but then came back with another formula. I am not willing to do that.
Mike Penning
I am trying to be honest, as I always am when at the Dispatch Box or giving evidence to a Select Committee. Is this in my destiny today? Could I start a new consultation tomorrow? Yes I could, but I would not have the information within my grasp to do that. I have not got a date from Sara Thornton for that report. It is enormously difficult getting 43 police chiefs to agree where they will place their capabilities. For instance, East Midlands police covers homicide in the whole area, but most of the other ROCUs do not. Things such as cybercrime and encryption need to come with us because it should not be for the House or a Minister to tell chief constables “That’s what you should be doing”. The constables should be telling us where the capabilities will be, so that we can help with the funding formula.
Mr Gareth Thomas
The Minister will remember from the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that there has been speculation that the review will be put off until 2019. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give a timetable, but can he categorically rule out it starting as late as that?
Mike Penning
No Minister would stand and give such categorical responses—I cannot, because that would be wrong. We are determined to ensure—the Met is crucial to this—that we have an understanding from the chiefs and the PCCs about where they are asking the capabilities to be delivered from, whether ROCUs, local collaboration or the NCA. Then we can come forward and get it right.
I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and her response was very measured, but when in government the Labour party said that it would implement this measure but it did not, and that is part of the discussion that we are having. Crime has massively changed since then.
Sarah Champion
The Minister is right to say that crime has massively changed. Does he share my concern that when we get data for online crime—fraud, grooming or abuse—the crime figures will spike?
Mike Penning
The National Audit Office suggested that that would be the case, and we have to accept that. That does not mean tomorrow morning, next week or next month when those figures are produced, that suddenly from that night on there is a 5 million or 6 million increase, or whatever the figure is, because it is happening to us all in our constituencies now. The difference is that we are going to publish it—the only way we can do this is to be honest about it and publish it. I do not know why previous Ministers did not publish that information in previous Administrations—believe it or not, I am not allowed to see those figures, because we are not allowed to do due diligence on what went on in previous Governments, and we are not allowed to see that guidance. I think it is because initially this issue was not taken seriously enough, and then people started to realise that it is actually a very difficult figure to pull together.
Richard Drax
I know from my constituency that Dorset is working with Devon and Cornwall, and other police forces are looking at how they run their blue- light services, including the ambulance service and fire brigade. Is the Minister saying that only when everyone has had a look at this issue in their various areas and come up with some joint policy that uses our resources and money better will he be able to say, “Okay, now we have various people doing different things. Now I will come up with some funding allocation”?
Mike Penning
I hope I did not say that because that is not what I intended to say. I intended to say that forces that have already collaborated should not be worse off by anything that we bring forward. The chiefs are doing their own capability review across policing—the collaboration with other services is a slightly different thing. Once I know where that delivery point will be and, in other words, where they think the services will be—they could be in ROCUs or local collaboration, as in my hon. Friend’s part of the country, or within the NCA, or within a force—we will have a basis for coming forward with a fairer formula.
Mr Kevan Jones
I want to ask a question about what the Minister is trying to achieve. If he is doing that now, why was it possible in the previous review to think that he could come up with a fair funding formula in eight weeks? What is the role of the Treasury? Is it still sitting on his shoulder trying to get savings, or are we starting with an entirely new process? One key thing that has been raised in the debate—I think the Minister realises it—is that he has to get the confidence back of chief constables, PCCs and the police family.
Mike Penning
I have broad shoulders, but they are not broad enough to take on the whole Treasury. However, the Treasury’s influence is only that it is a flat cash terms agreement for four years, not one year. That is the agreement we have. All the chiefs and PCCs know it. They did not know—they do now.
It would be wrong if I did not mention Scotland, not least because we heard a very interesting contribution from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and another one. I did not allow myself to get involved in the spat between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. All I can say is that I thought the SNP position was—I am almost lost for words—ridiculous. That is being polite. Suppose someone goes to their bank manager and asks for a loan of £10,000, £100,000 or even £1 million and he agrees it after looking at the business plan. If, as they walk out after presenting their business plan, they say to the bank manager who is giving them the money, “By the way, I want another 20%,” he will laugh. I laughed when I first read that that is exactly what the Scottish National party has done.
Mike Penning
I will take an intervention in a minute, but we must try to understand that, if SNP Members put a business plan for a joint force in Scotland together and submit it, and accept that they are not going to get the 20%, how can they come to this House and bellyache?
Richard Arkless
I would make two points. First, when that person walks out of that bank and finds out that every single competitor on the street has better terms, it starts to rankle and they protest about it. Secondly, when we included that in our business plan, we made our protestations clear. We told the Government that we did not think it was right. We reserved the right to campaign on it for ever and a day. That is what we will do. The fact that it is agreed and in the plan does not make it right.
Mike Penning
If someone signs a contract and has an agreement, they are tied into it. At the end of the day—[Interruption.] They can protest as much as they want, but at the end of the day, they signed a contract that said, “No VAT”. They are now in that position where there is no VAT. [Interruption.] I am not going to give way.
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a disorderly way of proceeding. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) must not chunter from a sedentary position in hopeful anticipation of the Minister giving way. What he does is signal. If the Minister gives way, he can intervene.
Mike Penning
I am coming to a conclusion, not least because we debated this matter last week and two weeks before that. I have no idea why the Labour party called a debate last week, which has meant that fewer Members are in the Chamber today to debate the Select Committee’s report.
At the end of the day, all hon. Members want confidence that our police are there. They are there. We need to have confidence that crime is dropping. It is dropping. We need a different formula and we will try to provide one. I am sorry that I cannot give the Chair of the Committee the dates of each individual part, but I think he will understand why I want to get this absolutely spot on and right, which is why I have given the responses I have given today. It has been a sensible debate, even if I have not agreed with everything I have heard from Labour Members.
Keith Vaz
This has been an excellent debate, with so many right hon. and hon. Members talking about their local areas. The passion and respect we have in this House for our local police force is quite obvious. I want to add my thanks to Simon Cole, the chief constable of Leicestershire, and to the men and women of Leicestershire police, especially with an hour to go until the next time they will be at the King Power stadium protecting the best football team in England—with apologies to what happened to your own team, Mr Speaker. It is just one example of wonderful policing work.
Mike Penning
I know that as an Arsenal supporter, you, Mr Speaker, will find it somewhat difficult to be listening to a Leicester supporter, especially after the weekend, but the right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The policing of football grounds has changed massively. It is done completely differently. Thank goodness the sort of violence we used to see when I was younger is no longer there.
Keith Vaz
Indeed, Mr Speaker, as we prepare, with the grace of God, for European football next year.
The key question the Select Committee wanted the Minister to answer was when? He has not told us when, but he has given us a timetable. He is waiting for the capabilities report to come from the lead at the NPCC Chief Constables’ Council. When he gets that he will review it and then start the process. At least we have a timetable and a pathway, so there is some clarity. It is not the absolute clarity we needed, but it is some way forward to find out how we will get a police funding formula that is fit for purpose.
Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).
Business without Debate
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House we will take together the motions relating to social security.
Delegated legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Social Security
That the Employment Allowance (Increase of Maximum Amount) Regulations 2016 (S.I., 2016, No. 63), dated 25 January 2016, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.
That the Employment Allowance (Excluded Companies) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Fund Payments) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.—(Stephen Barclay.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Ecclesiastical Law
That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.—(Stephen Barclay.)
Question agreed to.
Bombardier: Job Losses (East Belfast)
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
May I first express my gratitude for the selection of this Adjournment debate, and the opportunity to raise what for me and my constituency has been a devastating blow not just for us in east Belfast. but for the Northern Ireland economy and for constituents in Derby affected by cuts in the transport division and internationally across Bombardier’s operation? Given the nature of Adjournment debates, I trust that hon. Members will have no objection to the parochial title I chose for this debate. My desire is to do the best for my constituents in east Belfast, while recognising that this story is much larger.
Bombardier employs 74,000 people in 28 countries across the world, with 7% or roughly 5,500 employees in Belfast working directly in the aerospace industry. On 17 February, it announced 1,080 job losses in east Belfast.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My hon. Friend talks about the figure of 1,080 jobs lost. Some 1,000 people work for Bombardier in my constituency. With great respect, our concern is not just east Belfast but Strangford. I commend him for bringing this issue to the House for consideration and for his hard work with the Minister. Help will have to reach beyond east Belfast, as there will be job losses for my constituents as well.
Gavin Robinson
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is right. Some 5,500 people are employed in the east Belfast site and around the city in five other locations. People work for Bombardier in Northern Ireland throughout our Province—in East Antrim, Larne, Carrickfergus, Lisburn, Lagan Valley, Bangor in North Down, and Ards in Strangford. This news story affects not only the 1,080 affected most directly, but their families, the local communities and the shops that they support, and so forth. The decision announced on 17 February was seismic.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in this very important debate. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that his party leader, the now First Minister Arlene Foster, will make her first visit in that capacity to America shortly, accompanied by the Deputy First Minister, to mark St Patrick’s day. Has the hon. Gentleman asked the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to encourage the American Government, which have done so much to support the peace process and other events in Northern Ireland, to intervene on this particular occasion?
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady who raises a fair point. When I was the special adviser to the then First Minister, I had the opportunity alongside him and the Deputy First Minister of visiting Montreal and the Bombardier facility there in 2012. There are important strategic links that have grown with the United States of America, so I think it is an important avenue to pursue.
With Bombardier being the largest private employer in Northern Ireland, providing high-skilled, well-paid jobs in a technically advanced industry, the impact is of great significance. The aerospace industry in Northern Ireland contributes £1.1 billion to our local economy, and to put that into perspective, that is 10% of our overall operating budget of the Northern Ireland Executive. Bombardier is also responsible for 10% of Northern Ireland’s total export manufacturing figures. Our region’s Enterprise Minister, Jonathan Bell, MLA, my colleague on the Northern Ireland Executive has the realistic and positive ambition of growing the impact that the aerospace industry in Northern Ireland has from £1.1 billion to £2 billion by 2024.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about being parochial, but of course with the launch of the C Series by Bombardier, the factory has a huge contribution to make to the UK aerospace sector as a whole. I understand his concern for his own constituency and region, but does he recognise that this is a national problem, as well as a local one?
Gavin Robinson
I completely agree. In fact, I was seeking hon Members’ forgiveness for the parochial nature of the title of the debate, recognising that the issue is much larger than East Belfast and Northern Ireland. In view of the nature of aviation, this is a UK and a global story.
I was saying that our Executive have a positive target of reaching £2 billion by 2024, but to achieve that aim, after the announcements over the last two weeks, it is important for us to take stock at this stage and to establish how best to grow to reach that target.
Bombardier’s present difficulties are directly associated with their noble development of the C Series aircraft. I say “noble”, because it is exactly the sort of manufacturing that we as a country should support. The C Series aircraft is novel; it is highly innovative; it utilises the best advances in lightweight composite technology; and in its class, it represents the next generation of light, noise-reducing, fuel-efficient aircraft that will travel further for less, with the wings that are fabricated and assembled in my constituency of East Belfast.
Such innovation has brought with it significant pressure from competitors in both Boeing and Airbus. The project has taken three years longer than anticipated and at $5.4 billion, it is $2 billion over budget. Cash flow has become a problem, but if I may, I wish to nail a number of myths that should not go unchallenged.
First, Bombardier is not a busted flush. It has taken a bold but significant step to refocus its operation and to enhance its competitiveness, and the rise in company value is just one indication that, while deeply painful, the recalibration of its international operation was an important step.
Secondly, the Government could not have done more to stave off the job losses. Bombardier has said as much, with half the job losses announced being in Canada, just four months after the Quebec Government invested over 1 billion Canadian dollars in the company. There was nothing that the regional government or national Government could have done in the last few weeks to stave off the difficult announcement that was made.
Indeed, far from viewing our Government as being inactive, I have been hugely encouraged by the support offered by both regional and national Government, so it may be appropriate to place on record at this stage my sincere appreciation for the commitment given by the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise. She recognises the importance of Bombardier to the Northern Ireland economy. Within hours of the announcement during recess week, she was available to discuss the issue with me by phone and she stood ready to assist. Just yesterday morning, she flew to Belfast, toured the facility and met management to extend her support, alongside the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Minister was here until late last night, and it was an early start for her yesterday, but she was committed, and she responded most ably.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I echo and endorse much of what my colleague from the neighbouring constituency has been saying. Many of the job losses are not in any one constituency; they are widely scattered. Is there not a need for all of us here, and the Northern Ireland Executive and the United Kingdom Government, to work together? Northern Ireland needs a comprehensive strategy, and that is not down to the Northern Ireland Executive alone.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful for the intervention from my parliamentary neighbour, some of whose constituents work at the Bombardier plant.
To date, the support of regional and national Government for Bombardier has reaped real rewards. Since the privatisation of Short Brothers in 1989, £2.6 billion has been invested in its facilities. Most recently, £114 million from regional and national Government secured an additional £850 million investment from Bombardier itself, including £520 million for the wing facility in my constituency, which was opened by the Prime Minister and was visited by the Minister yesterday.
But here’s the ask. In view of the Minister’s support, I ask her to leave no stone unturned in considering how we can best support Bombardier, especially given the investment that has been present for the C Series. I am also keen for UK Trade & Investment to take a more imaginative approach when considering how it can best support various aircraft manufacturers when they seek to secure orders internationally. Competition is rife in this market, but with three competing firms seeking Government support, I would recommend a considered and tactical deployment of support, relating to both need and the likelihood of success.
Inflating the order book for the C Series must be a key goal for us all. The opportunities for small airports located in city centres are very significant. Encouraging the inclusion of the C Series in their fleet mix and support for a markedly innovative industry must form part of the Government’s action plan, and I trust that the Minister will address that in her response. I am aware of the planning challenges posed by London’s City airport. A discussion with colleagues about ending the current impasse on planning restrictions would prove fruitful for the C series and Bombardier.
Following a personal request, the Minister committed herself to hosting a round-table discussion with representatives of the Ministry of Defence and the aerospace, defence and security industries in Northern Ireland, to share national procurement opportunities with the aim of enabling those industries to increase their output and their contribution to this country’s export capabilities. There are 70 such companies in Northern Ireland, 27 of which are in my constituency, and I know that the renewed importance of that request will not be lost on the Minister.
When people find themselves without hope, with lost opportunity and with no idea of what will come next, we must stand with them both morally and politically, and offer light during the darkest of times. On behalf of the 1,080 who have been directly affected, their families and our aerospace industry, I trust that we will begin that process tonight.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—my new friend—on securing the debate. I hope that my other friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), will forgive me: I have a new friend in Northern Ireland now.
This is a very important matter, and I do not seek to make light of it. Let me now take the opportunity to express my deep regret that Bombardier recently announced plans to reduce its workforce by—as we have heard—more than 1,000 jobs in Northern Ireland, and by 270 at its works in Derby. This is obviously a very worrying time for all the workers and, of course, for their families. The impact of the decision will be felt not just in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but in other communities in other constituencies.
Yesterday I visited Bombardier Aerostructures and Engineering Services in Northern Ireland to discuss the recent announcement and how we can do even more to support them.
Anna Soubry
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now I can really get stuck into what I want to say. I was waiting for that moment.
I visited Bombardier yesterday with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace). I make no apologies for singing the praises not only of Bombardier but of the huge, fabulous building in which it makes the wings and of the highly skilled, dedicated workforce.
It was an absolute joy and pleasure to meet not just the management but the workforce and to see how they work with what I was about to describe as pieces of fabric. I do not want anyone to think that the wings are made out of fabric. Those composites are laid, piece upon piece, and the shape emerges. The wings are beautifully constructed. Resin is applied and they are baked and worked on. It really was the most wonderful experience to see an aeroplane wing being constructed. Those huge pieces of equipment are so important to every aeroplane. It was wonderful to see them grow from strips of carbon fibre into the finished product, which is then put on a ship, after which there is nothing more to be done except join them to the fuselage. The entire construction is created in Belfast, and it was a wonderful experience that I will not forget. It was a great day, but in very difficult and concerning times.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East has made clear, Bombardier does not ask any more of us. It has made it clear that we have done everything we can, and that includes the Northern Ireland Government. The workforce need support. For employees in Northern Ireland, where economic development, education, employment and training are devolved matters, the UK Government have supported the Northern Ireland aerospace sector and will of course continue to do so. The Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland and Invest Northern Ireland will offer support to those affected by this announcement with a redundancy support package and possible retraining. As we know, there are potentially two tranches of people who are going to be made redundant, and that support will in some ways at least ease the burden on them and on Belfast and its surrounding areas.
In the immediate term, to assist those workers affected by Bombardier’s decision, the industry-led talent retention solution is available across the UK, including in Northern Ireland. The programme is designed to help any skilled Bombardier employees who lose their jobs to secure re-employment quickly within the advanced manufacturing and engineering sectors. As we know, these are highly skilled workers.
Bombardier has said that there is nothing the Government can do to reverse its restructuring decision, because that decision unfortunately reflects the firm’s order book, but we will of course continue to work closely with it. Bombardier is a major contributor to the UK economy. That is why we will continue to explore ways to support its drive for greater competitiveness, building on the success of the supply chains for the 21st century programme.
Bombardier plays a leading role in the work of the aerospace growth partnership—the AGP—which brings industry together with the Government to tackle barriers to growth, to boost exports and to secure high-value jobs for the long term. This spans work on technology, supply-chain productivity, competitiveness and skills. The AGP published a UK-wide strategy in March 2013 which is being implemented in Northern Ireland through a strategy launched in 2014 by the Northern Ireland Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. We will continue to work closely together on this.
In March 2013, the Government and industry committed £2.1 billion for new aerospace research and development to help to ensure that the UK could develop the product and manufacturing processes needed to position the sector for long-term growth. The 2015 spending review protected and extended this funding by an additional £900 million over six years to 2025-26, which the industry has committed to match. Therefore, the total joint commitment is now £3.9 billion for aerospace research from 2013 to 2026. Bombardier has already been contracted to receive £9.5 million for six projects looking into engine nacelle—engine housing—and wing technology, which of course it does so brilliantly.
Lady Hermon
Given that the Chancellor was keen to praise the deal the British Government achieved with the Chinese Government—this new trading arrangement we are going to have with China—can the Minister reassure workers employed by Bombardier that the Government will make this issue a priority during trade missions to China, India and elsewhere? Will she say something not only about the investment made in the past, but about where exactly this Government’s priority will lie as they take forward their new arrangements with China and with India?
Anna Soubry
The hon. Lady snuck India in there as well, so she gives me a number of points to answer. I can tell her that this Government absolutely recognise the huge importance of the aerospace sector, which is why we have put in as much money as we have, matched of course by the sector itself. It is important that we understand how vital it is that we continue to trade with China, but we are also hugely alert to the fact that China is slowly beginning to develop its own aerospace industry. In the past, it has bought its aeroplanes from other countries, but it is no great surprise that the Chinese are looking to the great success of our aerospace industry. The fear is that they will seek to replicate it—I shall put it in that way. The hon. Lady can be assured that we will always make it clear that United Kingdom industry, especially manufacturing, is incredibly important to the success of this Government, because it is so important to the success of our economy. If we do not have a good economy, we cannot have the sort of taxes we need to make sure we have the sort of services we need. Let us be in no doubt that aerospace is incredibly important to us, which, as I say, is why we have done the work and made the investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East made a good point about UKTI, and we will continue to promote Northern Ireland in all the work we do in promoting the United Kingdom. We will work to support the company’s export campaigns, and UK Export Finance also stands ready to support C Series aircraft sales. He will remember that we specifically talked about whether or not we could do some more work in making the point that the wings had been made in the United Kingdom, in Belfast. We should seize upon that, use that great technology and the huge respect those wings rightly have, and do—I was going to say a much better job, but I would rightly be reprimanded for that—some real work on making the point that they are made in Belfast. There is some more work we can do there with UKTI, and I am committed to taking that up.
While we are on the C Series passenger jet programme, let me say that it is a beautiful aircraft. I was given a model of one, although I almost did not need one because we can see that it is such a lovely aircraft. The company has reaffirmed its commitment to the C Series passenger jet programme and Belfast’s critical role in its delivery. As we know, on 17 February Air Canada signed a letter of intent for up to 75 C Series aircraft, which is a positive development for the programme. Along with the Northern Ireland Executive, we are fully committed to Bombardier’s C Series aircraft programme. We have jointly supported the wing development by committing £113.37 million of repayable launch investment, and we stand ready to provide export promotion and finance to support it. We will continue to work with Bombardier to support its sales campaigns, and, as I say, there is an awful lot more we can do by way of UKTI to take full advantage of this.
Jim Shannon
This is a very difficult subject to consider. One of the unfortunate casualties of the lay-offs is the apprenticeship scheme. I understand that the scheme will probably be cancelled because of the job losses. With that in mind, has the Minister had any discussions with the Minister for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland to look at other opportunities? Perhaps there could be help for those apprentices who have done some time already and would like to do more. I accept that it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but will she consider taking a look at that matter?
Anna Soubry
I am really very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I do not think I knew that, and it concerns me hugely, as I am sure it will concern everybody on the Opposition Benches. There is something particularly cruel about an apprentice losing their job, especially as we know that these are highly skilled jobs. I am more than happy to take that matter away. As the hon. Gentleman will see, I have three people sitting in the Box taking notes, so we will definitely take that away, and if there is anything I can do to help, I absolutely will do it.
Lady Hermon
There is something that the Minister can do. The Enterprise Bill comes back to the House next week. There is a clause in that Bill on apprenticeships, which was wrongly designated as exclusively English. When the Minister of State was winding up on Second Reading, he said that there would be a national advertising campaign for the apprenticeships that were mentioned in the Bill, but Northern Ireland was excluded. The Minister should look at that clause and ensure that it is altered before it goes through its final stages next week.
Anna Soubry
I certainly undertake to take a look at it, but I am not promising to be able to alter it. None the less, I will take away this apprenticeship query. I am sure that the Northern Ireland Executive and Bombardier will be well onto this matter, but if there is anything more that we can do, we will try to do it. The thought of youngsters finding their apprenticeships cut short concerns us all, so I absolutely give that undertaking.
As I come to a close, may I address some of the specific points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East? As we have a little time, let me say that I was very sad that I had to shorten my visit to Northern Ireland yesterday. Obviously, I had to come back for the steel debate. One day, I will go to the constituency of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I keep promising to go, but I never end up there. I was very sorry that I had to cancel that side of the visit yesterday, but we will do it another time. I really wanted to go to Bombardier, because that visit is incredibly important to me.
My hon. Friend talked about London City airport. Apparently, as it is a planning decision, I cannot comment on it, which is a pity. However, I do know that the C Series is particularly suited to that type of airport: it is a quiet aircraft; it is the right size; it carries the right number of passengers, 100 to 150; and it is perfectly suited to those international city-to-city journeys. We had a conversation as to whether the C Series would be involved in a new route from City airport to John F Kennedy international airport. Of course I have no opinion on that whatsoever, but I know that my hon. Friend does.
Anna Soubry
It seems that the C Series is the sort of aircraft that is perfectly placed to provide that service to passengers. It may be that that is a very good set of arguments to be advanced, but, as I have said, I cannot possibly comment on it.
In relation to the meeting with the Minister for Defence Procurement, we will absolutely get that together. We are in the process of bringing everybody into the Ministry of Defence. We will not come to Northern Ireland, much as we want to, as we think we stand a better chance of getting everybody around the table if we hold the meeting in the MOD. We are definitely working on that. It will take a bit of time to get all the big players, and the right players, around that table, but that is an absolute promise that I have made. My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement is also keen to have that meeting; we are looking forward to it and we think we can do some good work there.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell
Will the Minister accept the point I made earlier to my colleague the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)? Bombardier is the subject of this evening’s debate, and it is very important that we focus on it and do not detract from its importance, but the Northern Ireland economy is frail and fragile. Ministers in the Executive have done a wonderful job trying to promote the economy in every way possible, but we need a comprehensive plan including having her good self and her Department, as well as the broader UK Government, give us that bit of extra help. To put it quite simply, the likes of the apprenticeship provision are very important because we are not in a position to give our young people jobs. If the Minister is coming to visit, we will find places other than North Antrim to take her. I am a native of North Antrim, but there are 17 other constituencies and we would love to involve the Minister in helping us to build a more prosperous society.
Anna Soubry
I am more than happy to work with anyone, but I get the invitations and either say yes or no, so the hon. Gentleman will have to invite me. When people ask me to go to places, I am happy to go. There are places I am particularly keen to go, and it just so happens that Northern Ireland is one. I went over to meet the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and had a very pleasant day with him. I have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that he said he would only take up my time for a couple of hours—four hours later I had nearly missed the plane.
Anna Soubry
It is a great place. As for plans, I do not think that that is for me to say, but I am always happy to work with anybody and assist in any way I can. I know how important it is that we get the employment rate to where it should be in Northern Ireland, especially for the young people. When I went over there last year, one thing that everybody spoke to me about was the need to ensure that there was a real and genuine future for young people. That is why we get so worried about Bombardier: we know that it offers high-quality jobs involving real money and real skills, so it is imperative that we keep those high-value, highly skilled jobs in Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, I am sure that the House will join me in regretting the announcement of the job losses, but we are committed and determined to do all we can to support Bombardier in its future, to make it even more competitive and to support the C Series as much as we can for all the reasons I have explained, which are, if I may say so, obvious.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Pharmacy (Premises Standards, Information Obligations, etc.) Order 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pharmacy (Premises Standards, Information Obligations, etc.) Order 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. The draft order makes changes to the pharmacy regulators’ powers to regulate pharmacy premises. In broad terms, the intention is to remove the General Pharmaceutical Council’s duty to set standards in rules; it will instead set them as code of practice-style obligations that are enforced through disciplinary committee procedures. The Northern Ireland regulator, the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, will have a statutory duty to set standards for registered pharmacies, and the draft order will clarify what those standards can cover.
The draft order will make changes to the regulators’ ability to issue interim suspensions from the premises register. The General Pharmaceutical Council’s powers relating to improvement notices will be amended. It will be enabled to publish reports of pharmacy premises inspections. Its powers to obtain information from pharmacy owners will be changed. A correction will be made to the Pharmacy Order 2010 in respect of the notification of the General Pharmaceutical Council of the death of a pharmacy professional. All the changes have been developed with the agreement of the regulators, the Government and the devolved Administrations. The General Pharmaceutical Council’s pharmacy premises standards may relate to the regulation of pharmacy technicians, which is a devolved matter, so the draft order has also been laid in the Scottish Parliament. The draft order was debated in another place on Monday 22 February.
I will give the Committee some background. All pharmacists and pharmacy technicians who practise in Great Britain must be registered by the General Pharmaceutical Council. Pharmacists who practise in Northern Ireland are registered with the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland. Pharmacy technicians are not a registered healthcare profession in Northern Ireland. Unlike most other healthcare regulators, the pharmacy regulators are also responsible for the regulation of registered premises. The regulation of retail pharmacy premises is the subject of the draft order.
The key change for the General Pharmaceutical Council, and one of the Law Commission’s recommendations, is that it should no longer be required to set standards for registered pharmacies in rules. Instead, the standards should be aligned with other regulatory standards and be code of practice style-obligations, enforced through disciplinary procedures. This supports the General Pharmaceutical Council’s approach, since its inception in 2010, to move to an outcomes-based approach to pharmacy premises regulation. Overall, the draft order will align the legal status of registered pharmacies standards with the status of standards for individual registrants.
As a consequence of moving the standards out of rules, they will no longer be included in a statutory instrument that is subject to Privy Council approval. Increasing the autonomy of the General Pharmaceutical Council in this way is in line with Government policy. However, the draft order includes an explicit requirement for the General Pharmaceutical Council to consult Scottish Ministers, as well as English and Welsh Ministers, on changes to pharmacy premises standards.
The General Pharmaceutical Council’s standard setting powers are being extended to include associated premises; that is, premises at which activities are carried out which are integral to the provision of pharmacy services. This reflects the fact that, in some respects, the traditional model of pharmacy premises being entirely self-contained operations at which all aspects of the retail pharmacy business are carried out is outdated for some businesses. Integral parts of their business operations—for example, electronic data storage—may be elsewhere. Very similar changes are being made in relation to Northern Ireland.
The disqualification procedures for pharmacy owners and the procedures for removing premises from the premises register will be amended for both regulators: first, so the disqualification procedures apply to retail pharmacy businesses owned by a pharmacist or a partnership, as well as bodies corporate; and, secondly, to clarify that the test to apply sanctions, where premises standards are not met, is whether the pharmacy owner is unfit to carry on the retail pharmacy business safely and effectively. The General Pharmaceutical Council already has powers to issue improvement notices where a pharmacy owner breaches the standards for pharmacy premises.
The draft order will make two amendments to the sanctions provisions relating to breaches of improvement notices. The two changes mean that the General Pharmaceutical Council will deal with all breaches of premises standards as disciplinary matters. Both regulators are being enabled to make suspension orders, pending a full hearing of the case against the owners of pharmacy premises, and to make interim suspensions from the register prior to a disqualification decision or a removal decision taking effect. These changes reflect the move to better align the disciplinary provisions for pharmacy owners, in respect of breaches of pharmacy premises standards, with those for individual registrants.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The power in article 18, which the Minister has already referred to, is that Ministers have to be consulted before a change is made to the rules. What is the point of that? It does not seem that Ministers have any right of veto, or to insist on anything different, so why do they not just trust the regulator?
Alistair Burt
Bearing in mind Ministers’ overall responsibilities to duties under the NHS, legislation about what pharmacies do and the general mandate of the NHS in relation to pharmacies, a consultation procedure is still required so that Ministers are made aware of the sort of changes that are being included, to ensure that those changes fit with other aspects of the NHS mandate for which Ministers are responsible. In no sense is that anything other than permissive. If there was disagreement and Ministers did not want to continue, that would be an important part of the discussion. But I do not think that a general duty to consult is necessarily a bad thing and it conforms with other responsibilities that Ministers may have.
The remaining changes are for the General Pharmaceutical Council. It is currently required to make rules in relation not just to premises standards but to the information obligation of pharmacy owners. The latter duty is permissive. The draft order will also clarify when the General Pharmaceutical Council can require pharmacy owners to provide such information and the type of information covered. Currently, there is no provision about how these information-gathering rules are to be enforced, and this gap is being filled by making use of the existing enforcement regime via the General Pharmaceutical Council’s improvement notice system. The General Pharmaceutical Council is also being enabled to publish reports and outcomes from pharmacy premises inspections.
The opportunity is being taken to correct an error in the Pharmacy Order 2010 to require notification of the death of a registered pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician by a registrar of births and deaths, or in Scotland a district registrar, rather than by the Registrar General, as the legislation currently states.
A full public consultation on the draft order was conducted across the United Kingdom from 12 February 2015 to 14 May 2015. There were 159 responses and the overwhelming majority supported the proposals, with many welcoming them. However, the need for guidance—whether from regulatory professional bodies or others—was raised in response to a number of the proposals, to help understand the proposed changes and their impact in practice. To supplement the consultation, a number of events were arranged across the UK for patients and the public. Participants at the events gave unanimous support to the proposals for an outcomes-based approach to standards for registered pharmacy premises. The emphasis on patient safety was welcomed and it was recommended that pharmacy users should have a voice in whether good outcomes for patients are being achieved by pharmacies. Publication of inspection reports in Great Britain was also welcomed.
In summary, the key proposals concerning the continuing development of an outcomes-based approach to standards for registered pharmacy premises build on best practice. The proposal that the standards should not be placed in legislative rules follows as a consequence of this approach and will enable the General Pharmaceutical Council, and eventually the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, to respond quickly when reviewing and updating the standards to keep pace with the increasingly rapid changes in pharmacy service provision. I commend the draft order to the House.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank the Minister for his useful overview of the effects of the draft order.
No one will disagree with the overall aim of improving standards and practice in the distribution and use of medicines. Medicines are a critical and essential part of the healthcare system in this country, and the accurate dispensing of medicines and the quality of the advice given by pharmacists are of paramount importance.
Overall, the draft order is eminently sensible, but it must be looked at in the context of where community pharmacy is going. Around 1.6 million people visit pharmacies every day. Pharmacies are among the most high-frequency interfaces of the health and social care system, so they have huge potential to fulfil many of people’s most regular requirements of that system and potential to take the strain off accident and emergency departments and GP surgeries. I am therefore a little confused that the Government are pushing ahead with reductions in the community pharmacy budget, which I understand will be the subject of an oral question in the other place tomorrow afternoon.
Ministers themselves estimate that between 1,000 and 3,000 community pharmacies will have no option but to shut their doors. Those closures will mean job losses and worsening pay for people across the sector. Pharmacists are often seen as simply suppliers of medication that others prescribe, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that they are so much more than that. The Opposition worry that this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Pharmacists carry out legal and clinical checks, administer vaccinations and emergency contraception, and review the effectiveness of people’s medication. The changes in the sector will be regressive, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider them.
My colleague Lord Hunt of Kings Heath made an excellent point when the draft order was debated in the other place. When the Health and Social Care Bill was debated in 2012, there were discussions about whether community pharmacists could be represented on the boards of clinical commissioning groups. The Government decided against that, but I suspect that because pharmacists are not around the table we often miss their valuable contributions in discussions on various parts of the healthcare system, of which they are usually a crucial part. Lord Hunt was right to say that we are missing a trick here.
We are happy to support the draft order and we note that the responses to the Government’s consultation were overwhelmingly positive, but I have placed on the record the concerns of Her Majesty’s Opposition with the Government’s approach to the pharmacy sector and I hope that the Minister will take those concerns away.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Dorries. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who sits on the Front Bench, has anticipated the thrust of the argument that I want to present to the Minister.
The draft order looks broadly deregulatory. The Minister has consulted on it and there is support for it, but it should be considered in the context of the 6% cuts to the community pharmacy budget about which I have received significant representations from pharmacists in my constituency. Pharmacists in Bishop Auckland, Kirk Merrington and Cockfield, and the County Durham and Darlington local pharmaceutical committee have written to me and are extremely concerned about the impact of those cuts on their pharmacies.
I wrote to the Minister and he wrote in response that he had a marvellous strategy for pharmacies, which I could not quite square, and that they were going to do all these new, wonderful things. If they are going to do lots of new, wonderful things, it seems odd to be cutting the money, but he can no doubt explain to us what he means. He also wrote that it was not sensible to subsidise pharmacies if they were close to each other and that around two thirds or three quarters of them—I cannot remember the number—were close to another pharmacy. I have to tell him that Kirk Merrington and Cockfield are villages and it takes half an hour on the bus to get from those villages to anywhere else with a pharmacy. It is important that he addresses the rural dimension of not continuing to provide proper support for pharmacists who—as everyone on the Committee is no doubt fully aware—can provide significant benefits to public health.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Following my hon. Friend’s contribution, I also want to put something on the record. I have had representations from pharmacists in Newcastle-under-Lyme in north Staffordshire who face funding cuts. They are, quite frankly, baffled, because they are also expected to do more on the frontline to help patients and relieve pressure on GP surgeries, which, like much of our health service, are embattled at the moment.
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to the Committee for its response and appreciate the support for the draft order in that narrow part of our discussion. I did anticipate that one or two other issues might be raised. With your permission, Ms Dorries, if you feel that those contributions were in order, I am happy to respond briefly.
The draft order is set in the context of the changes being proposed to community pharmacy. Let me lay out, as best I can, what the Government have in mind. In essence, we want to see community pharmacy better integrated into primary care, by increasing the number of pharmacists who bring their skills to GP practices, care homes, and urgent care and public health settings. We need a clinically focused pharmacy service, better integrated with primary care and public health, in line with the five year forward view.
We are consulting with the pharmacy sector and patient groups on how to introduce, for example, the pharmacy integration fund. That will transform how pharmacists operate in the NHS, reducing pressure on A&E and GPs by making better use of pharmacists’ terrific clinical skills to help deliver seven-day health and care services. Proposals for discussion include more pharmacists in GP practices, working closely with GPs to optimise the use of medicines and promote healthy living; patients often seeing a pharmacist instead of a GP, particularly for minor ailments, adding capacity to the system and freeing up appointments; establishing a named pharmacist in care homes who can discuss and review medicines and work with the patients to get the best possible outcomes; and integrating pharmacists as part of all care processes as standard, as a key means of maintaining public health and preventing ill health.
We want to see that development in pharmacy, and to an extent we are going with the grain of what the pharmacy sector has been looking for for some time. Studies by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Nuffield Trust say that pharmacy needs to change, and needs to recognise that it can contribute further to the NHS, in addition to the excellent services that are based in more and more high street pharmacies. Not all high street pharmacies provide the same services; one issue is that some 40% of pharmacies are in a cluster of three or more pharmacies within ten minutes’ walk.
To address the point made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, we are proposing an access fund whereby more NHS resources will be devoted to pharmacies in areas where the cluster argument does not apply. Quite sensibly, no one wants to lose a pharmacy; if a pharmacy finds itself having difficulties with the new financial regime, we want to make sure that it is able to continue. Discussions are already proceeding with pharmacy representatives about how the access fund will be set out, because there must be national standards—a set of rules to let people see how things are done.
We feel that the combination of the access fund, which will make sure that pharmacies in key areas can continue their work, with the integration fund, which will assist more pharmacists to work in different settings, is what pharmacy needs. Let me be honest among all colleagues: it would be great if that could be done against a background of no reductions in finance, or ever more finance going in, but we are not in that situation. We need to fulfil the commitment, made by my party at the general election, to put more funding into the NHS. That £8 billion commitment is now a £10 billion commitment by 2020. All colleagues know that it is not just about the extra money; it also depends on the £22 billion of efficiencies set out by Simon Stevens, chief executive of the NHS. All parts of the NHS need to contribute to those efficiencies, and that includes pharmacy. It is the Government’s genuine belief that, even within the new envelope that will provide £2.63 billion to pharmacy this year, it will be possible for pharmacies not only to continue their excellent work, but to develop it in the ways that I have set out and that we believe pharmacy wants as well. That is what we intend.
There will be an opportunity for further discussion and debate about this; I know colleagues are receiving letters about it, so the debate has some way to go. We are in discussion and negotiation with those who represent pharmacies; there is an interesting conversation taking place and we want to see it continue.
Helen Goodman
Is the £2.6 billion subsidy partly for medicine, or is it a subsidy for the infrastructure of the pharmacy network?
Alistair Burt
I would not say that this is a subsidy. It is payment made by the NHS and the taxpayer for the provision of premises and the work that pharmacists do. It is essentially more about infrastructure. The drugs bill is beyond that; that is the agreement. It is still a significant amount of money that will go into the provision of services. Where we find pharmacy services looking to work in different ways, which is already happening—there are pharmacists in GP surgeries and on some hospital wards—we want to encourage that process, without damaging the exceptionally good high street service that is provided by the majority of pharmacists, which we want to see continue.
The draft order fits in with that approach by changing the rules on the regulation of premises. It will make sure that the regulators can do their job in the way we all want to see—with procedures for guidance, as opposed to strict legislative rules. This is in line with the autonomy of professional regulatory bodies that the profession and the Government are looking for. I am grateful for the Committee’s support.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) Order 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) Order 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I gather that the title of the order is already trending on Twitter.
It has long been a desire held across Europe—I know that Members will understand the significance when I talk about how important this is to Europe—to create a single patent system that supports innovative businesses and makes it easier for them to obtain and enforce patent protection. Obviously, given the way the debate on Europe is going, the order may only last three months.
The current European patent system is fragmented and expensive. Instead of a single patent covering the whole of Europe, businesses have to maintain a bundle of patent rights, each covering a single country in which they want patent protection. Each patent must be enforced separately in the national court of each country, which can be extremely costly and burdensome.
This Government want the UK to be part of a European patent system that supports growth and provides a cost-effective option for innovative businesses that want to protect and market their inventions across Europe. [Interruption.] I see that I have already lost one hon. Member with my unequivocally pro-European remarks. The unitary patent and the unified patent court form a package of European patent reforms that will achieve that ambition.
The unitary patent will give businesses the option to hold a single uniform patent right across all participating European states. The unified patent court will offer a means to enforce a patent across most of the EU single market, making it easier for innovative businesses to enforce patent protection across Europe in a single judgment. The importance of being able to obtain a single judgment that is valid across Europe should not be underestimated. For example, recent independent research shows that about a quarter of all patent cases heard at the UK courts between 2000 and 2008 were also heard in other European jurisdictions with the same litigant and the same defendant. I think it will therefore be clear to hon. Members what duplication we are trying to get rid of.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was personally involved in negotiating the final stages of the agreement in June 2012. As part of that negotiation, he secured agreement that part of the unified patent court will be in London, thus cementing the UK’s global reputation as a place to resolve commercial legal disputes.
I turn briefly to the specifics of what the order will do. It will amend the Patents Act 1977 and will make three key changes. First, it will make clear where the unified patent court will have jurisdiction and where the UK courts will retain jurisdiction, so it will make clear where UK jurisdiction ends and UPC jurisdiction begins. The order will ensure that the 1977 Act correctly accounts for the unitary patent, in particular to recognise the wider territory covered by a unitary patent in comparison with a patent that is valid only in the UK.
Importantly, the order will introduce two exceptions to patent infringement that are provided for in the UPC agreement but do not currently exist in UK law. I will remind the Committee what those two exceptions are. The first allows plant breeders to use patented biological material to create a new plant variety. The second allows the very limited but none the less important use of patented computer programs.
We think that the new court and patent will be ready for business in early 2017. The whole system can come into effect only once 13 countries, including the UK, have ratified the unified patent court agreement. The Prime Minister has called for a clear long-term commitment to boosting competitiveness and driving growth, and for a target to cut the burden on business. The order will contribute to that. The implementation of the unitary patent and the unified patent court are part of that competitiveness boost in the single market, and it is right that we press ahead with actions that will allow the UK to ratify the unified patent court agreement. The order will make the necessary changes to UK law to enable ratification of the agreement, taking us one step closer to achieving the goal of a European patent system that supports innovation and growth. I commend the order to the Committee.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I know you will understand, Sir Roger, when I say dydd gwyl Dewi Sant hapus—happy St David’s day to all members of the Committee, and particularly the three other Opposition members who represent Welsh constituencies.
As ever, we are punching above our weight on European matters in this Committee. [Interruption.] Well, the Six Nations is yet to come, as is Euro 2016. The proposals in the draft order have largely been viewed positively, and one would after all think it sensible to have one patent covering 25 European Union countries rather than 25 separate patents in 25 different countries. The difficulties in pursuing patents in potentially 25 different languages—it may not be that many—with the time, energy and cost involved, would be much simplified by having the unitary patent. As the Minister said, this measure has been in the making since February 2013, when the UK signed the unified patent court agreement, so we have had several years to get to grips with the detail and to try to sort out any administrative problems.
Some questions have been raised about the mechanics of introducing the unitary patent. It will be interesting to hear whether the Minister can help us on any of those questions this afternoon while we have the opportunity to put them to him. He mentioned that the unified patent court is expected to start in 2017. Does he have any indication in which country the court is likely to be set up and who will adjudicate? Will it be a principal judge or a bench of judges, and what will be the system for appointing and getting rid of judges? Any information he can give the Committee on that will, I am sure, be extremely welcome. What sort of expertise and experience in this complex area of law will be expected of those adjudicating in the patent court? Will there be a way of monitoring the performance of the judges and of the court itself, or any system of performance indicators to judge the success or otherwise of the new court? How much will the administration of the court cost, and how will it be paid for? What will the UK contribution to the cost of the court be?
I know that the Government’s impact assessment says that the net cost to businesses will be zero—I presume because it is anticipated that there will be a net saving overall from having the unified patent court system—but is there any indication of what the cost of applying to the court to register patents will be and how that compares to the current cost in the UK? It would be useful to have some indication.
There have been a number of concerns. The Library briefing for our proceedings today included some concerns expressed by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Germany about the proposed unitary patent and court. Does the Minister have any information on that, and do the Government have any views on the concerns that have been expressed? It would be useful to the Committee to hear that. Lord Justice Kitchin was also critical of the proposals in a speech in October 2012, highlighting the difficulty for companies having to fight court cases in different locations. Do his comments have any merit?
Finally—it is a rather obvious question—what would be the effect on all this of a decision to leave the European Union in the forthcoming referendum? In practical terms, would it mean that we would join the system on a temporary basis and then withdraw, or would there be any possibility of maintaining the benefits to business of some kind of unified patent system even if we were no longer a member of the European Union? I would be very grateful if the Minister could give us an idea of the implications of a no vote and a decision to withdraw. How long would it take for there to be an effect on Britain’s participation in the new unified European patent court?
Subject to a satisfactory response to my questions by the Minister, I do not intend to divide the Committee today.
Mr Vaizey
I am extremely grateful for the chance to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points. Let me deal first with the geographical basis of the unified patent court and the costs of the court and of patents. It is important to stress that the court will have a single jurisdiction and a single set of rules of procedure, but it will be spread across different locations.
There will be a court of first instance and a court of appeal. The court of first instance will have a central division, and there will be a number of local and regional divisions that have been set up partly at the request of individual member states. The central division will be located in Paris—the French won that fight. There will be also specialised central divisions, so although Paris will have the headquarters, Munich will have the specialised mechanical engineering part of the central division, and I am really pleased to say that London will get the bit of the central division specialising in chemistry and life sciences. That is particularly relevant to pharmaceuticals, in which, of course, the UK has a strong record. There will also be local divisions that one can visit to register a patent—one in London, four in Germany—in Munich, Düsseldorf, Hamburg and Mannheim—and one in Stockholm for the Nordic and Baltic region, covering Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The court of appeal for the unified patent court will be in Luxembourg.
Court fees will be a combination of fixed fees and fees based on the value of a case, so they are likely to range from as little as €100 up to €300,000, but a €300,000 case would be one in which at least €50 million was at stake. Fees will actually be much lower in the unified patent court for small and micro entities than they have previously been. There will also be options for mediation and arbitration.
There are approximately 350,000 patents in force in the UK alone, which goes to show the level of work that the unified patent court will potentially be undertaking. The cost of a patent is also important. It will cost less than €5,000 to renew a patent for the first 10 years. The cumulative cost of maintaining a patent over its full 20-year term will be about €35,000. That compares with a cost at the moment of potentially about €160,000 to have a full patent in the 26 different jurisdictions in which the unified patent court would apply. The renewal fee scale adopted for the unified patent court corresponds to a reduction of about 78% compared with the cost of maintaining protection in 26 states.
Judges will be appointed from across Europe, and they will be experts in patent law. We expect to start the recruitment process soon. Whether the court sits as a single judge or a panel of judges will depend on the case.
I have something that Brexit Ministers cannot see—a brief about the impact of the referendum. It says absolutely nothing, really, so I do not know what people are getting so worked up about. The briefing seems to me to be completely meaningless, so let me busk it. I do not want to get into trouble with the Mayor of London or anyone else, but if we left Europe as a result of the referendum, I suspect it would be a decision for the UK Government whether they wanted to rejoin the European patent court. Of course, we would have to rely on our European partners to decide whether the UK could be a member.
Kevin Brennan
There was reference in the Library briefing to a blog from Bristows, the starting point of which is that it will not be possible for a non-EU member state to take part in the proposed unified patent court regime. I presume that, if that is the case, we would not be able to apply to be part of it, and British business and UK plc would lose the benefit of being able to register a single patent.
Mr Vaizey
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification on that point. I think that that was sort of what I was saying: clearly, were we to leave the European Union, we would no longer be members of the unified patent court. It would then be a matter for the UK Government to ask the European Union whether we could be a member, if we thought that was a good thing. I suspect the European Union would have something to say about that. For people whose lives are dominated by thoughts of having a European patent, it would be a bad thing if we were not a member of the European Union. I hope that that is clear.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2016.
Sir Edward, it is a pleasure to serve under your guidance. This instrument amends regulations concerning the contracts for difference scheme and the capacity market. As a reminder to hon. Members, these two schemes were key elements of the electricity market reform programme that was introduced in the previous Parliament. Both the CfD scheme and the capacity market are designed to incentivise the significant investment required in our electricity infrastructure to keep costs affordable for consumers and to help meet our decarbonisation targets, while keeping our energy supply secure.
Contracts for difference, or CfDs, provide long-term price stabilisation to low carbon generators, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital and therefore, at a lower cost to consumers. The capacity market provides regular payments to reliable forms of generation in return for such capacity being available when needed, thus ensuring that enough capacity is always in place to maintain security of supply. In both schemes, participants bid for support via a competitive auction, which ensures that costs to consumers are minimised.
As hon. Members will be aware, the first CfD allocation round was held in October 2014, delivering 25 large-scale renewable generation projects at a significantly lower cost than the renewables obligation scheme, which is being phased out. The first capacity market auction was held in December 2014, with a second auction held last December, securing 46 GW of capacity at a price of £18 per kilowatt per year, along with a recent transitional auction for demand-side response held earlier this year.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Government today announced a number of changes to the capacity market framework to ensure that it remains fit for purpose to meet our security-of-supply needs, including bringing forward delivery by holding a new early auction for delivery in winter 2017-18. A consultation on those changes has been launched and we will make final decisions in due course.
However, the regulations that we are considering today have a different purpose. The Government are simply seeking to make a number of technical amendments relating to how money is collected from electricity suppliers in Great Britain in order to fund the schemes. Specifically, the proposed amendments would improve the efficiency with which CfD costs are recovered from electricity suppliers, which will ultimately reduce costs to consumers, and set the rates for the operational levies relating to both schemes.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
The Minister has indicated that the amendments are largely technical. Will she tell the Committee whether her Department has received any objections to what is proposed, and if so, the nature of such objections?
Andrea Leadsom
There has been consultation with industry and respondents have been largely supportive of the proposals. They are technical in nature and are not controversial.
The instrument under consideration builds on the instrument that established the CfD supplier obligation mechanism. The CfD supplier obligation is levied on all licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain to meet the costs of the support received by generators that hold a CfD. That levy on electricity suppliers in Great Britain is set on a quarterly basis by the Low Carbon Contracts Company, which is a Government-owned company that acts as the counterparty to CfD contracts. The Low Carbon Contracts Company sets the levy and a reserve amount based on forecasts of payments to CfD generators, which are then reconciled against actual payments in arrears.
This instrument makes a number of minor and technical amendments to improve the efficiency and transparency of the supplier obligation to minimise costs to suppliers, and ultimately, to consumers. The most significant aspects of the amendments are as follows. First, the regulations amend the calculation of the levy that is paid by electricity suppliers on each unit of supply, so that it is a better reflection of suppliers’ likely actual liabilities. Secondly, they allow the levy to be reduced without notice when the Low Carbon Contracts Company anticipates collecting significantly more than required, in order to reduce the likelihood of electricity suppliers paying more than they need to pay. Thirdly, they require the Low Carbon Contracts Company to forecast CfD costs for at least the next 12 months and to publish the date from which each generator is expected to begin receiving CfD payments. That is to provide greater transparency on the costs that electricity suppliers and consumers will face in future.
All the proposals implemented by the instrument were consulted on publicly, and received a largely favourable response. We estimate that the changes, in addition to further regulations which we plan to lay in due course, will reduce the costs to consumers of CfDs by approximately £38 million over the period 2016-20. This instrument also sets the annual operational cost levy for the Low Carbon Contracts Company, as well as setting the settlement costs levy that funds the annual budget of the Electricity Settlements Company, which is responsible for collecting and making payments to capacity providers under the capacity market. The amendments revise the levies for 2015-16 to reflect the operational requirements and objectives of the companies in 2016-17. Both levies were subject to public consultation, giving stakeholders the opportunity to scrutinise and test the key assumptions in the budgets and, importantly, ensure that they represent value for money.
Subject to the will of Parliament, the changes to the CfD supplier obligation, the operational costs levy for the Low Carbon Contracts Company and the settlement costs levy for the Electricity Settlements Company are due to come into force by 1 April 2016. Finally, I would like to assure all hon. Members that the Government will continue to evaluate and monitor the reforms following implementation, ensuring that the measures put in place remain effective and continue to represent value for money for the consumer.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Sir Edward, to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. The Minister has set out the reasoning behind the proposals in the statutory instrument. At first sight, these appear to be fairly minor changes in the regulations and their consequences for capacity market bodies, but there is broader point to be made about the CfD counterparty body, and, to a lesser extent, about the settlement body for capacity payments.
With the indulgence of the Committee, I shall spend a moment reflecting on how the CfD counterparty body came to be and consider the thorny question of how to undertake the operation of 15-year CfDs for generators. Over that period, we have to have a known supply of money to reward those generators under the terms of the CfD, and we need to ensure that there is money from the suppliers to fund the levy, and that the generators can have confidence that they will secure that levy funding to underpin their operation over the period. When the Energy Bill from which this legislation is derived was going through the House there was a considerable debate about what the counterparty should consist of.
In many people’s eyes, the counterparty should simply have consisted of a Government guarantee that those payments were anticipated and should be passed on, and if there was any problem or shortfall the Government guarantee would step in. That has indeed been the case in similar arrangements over the years. On this occasion, it was felt there could be no such Government guarantee and that an alternative procedure that looked as close as possible to being a Government guarantee should be adopted. That was how the CfD counterparty body came to exist. It is a company limited by shares: it is owned wholly by the Government, empowered under section 7 of the Energy Act 2013, but it is a freestanding company that does not have any Government guarantee as such. Among other things, that means that money passing through the Treasury does not have any public borrowing implication and also that the Government are not liable for the success or failure of those counterparty operations.
In order to make sure that the company is as close as possible to a guarantee, various things have had to be built in. Not only is a levy charged to cover payments to generators based on suppliers’ market share at the time of the payment—it has been a quarterly payment—but a reserve fund has had to be set up through the counterparty body to cover the possible costs of default by the supplier. It is effectively a travel agency bond, so that if a supplier defaults there is a reserve fund to cover the costs and ensure there is sufficient money in the settlement body to ensure that payments are made.
There is a lump sum quarterly payment to cover the operational costs of the counterparty body, which are around £14 million a year. Three separate components are required to take the place of a simple guarantee from the Government. None of those would be necessary if there were a Government guarantee body. The changes in this statutory instrument effectively cover all those areas of the original operating arrangement for the counterparty body. Those changes have been made in the light of a consultation that took place when the counterparty body was first set up. There was a consultation with industry as to whether the arrangements that I have described really were fit for purpose and sufficient to do the job that it was thought the counterparty body would do.
The consultation led to substantial concern about the costs of the arrangements as they related to suppliers, particularly small independent suppliers. If a small independent supplier is supposed to issue a bond to cope with possible default, and if it is supposed to make a lump sum payment for the operational costs of the body, in addition to what it is paying based on its market share, as well as putting money into a reserve fund, that is an onerous burden. It was just such companies that the Government were keen should succeed in order to widen the market and encourage switching, with benefits for people in changing how their supply works. The consultation suggested how the counterparty system would work: in principle, it would be possible to introduce working capital from Government sources which, without a full Government guarantee, would underpin the security of the reserve fund.
Strong representations were made during the consultation, but they were not acted on by the Government: as the levy was an industry arrangement it was considered that it should remain entirely within the industry. Those concerns have not gone away and, one way or another, the changes in the regulations accentuate them. I certainly welcome the change in the notice period for an interim rate to go down—it will be immediate—and the 30-day period for the interim rate to go up. That is a sound idea, and the industry has welcomed it substantially. Changing the date by which notice has to be given to suppliers about the reserve fund from the date on which the amount was determined to a later date means that for suppliers, particularly small suppliers, there is less certainty about the sum and how long they have to raise it.
The totals allocated for the running costs of the CfD counterparty and the settlement body for capacity auctions appear to have been increased. The allowance for the CfD counterparty will go up, according to the measure, from £14.2 million per annum to £14.4 million per annum. I have a query about an anomaly in the costs of the settlement body. Regulation 24 appears to suggest that the operation obligation in the Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014 rises from £3,891,000 to £4,283,000. The explanatory notes suggest that the total obligation for the two bodies for operating costs remains the same, and that the total for the settlement body for capacity payments goes down from £4,474,000 to £4,283,000. There appears to be a discrepancy in those figures.
If we look at the figure in the measure, and the question of costs for the CfD counterparty, it appears that the total costs for administration have increased by a substantial amount. Alternatively, the total budget, which is £18,690,000, stays the same, but there has been a change. Given the changes that are going to be introduced, all of which create additional pressure and problems for suppliers in meeting the terms of the counterparty, has the Minister reconsidered the points that were made in the consultation when the bodies were set up? In particular, has she reconsidered working capital arrangements to deal with the question of the reserve fund in the middle of the counterparty arrangements? Is she confident that the additional costs that are being placed on small suppliers will not discourage the widening pool of supply participants, as we are all anxious that that should not happen?
Lastly, if the costs of the counterparty continue to rise, and administrative costs are automatically defrayed against the levy supply provided to supply companies, what constraints are there on the activities of the counterparty body to ensuring that its costs stay within reasonable bounds? Or is it the case that there is an automatic relationship, as may appear to be the case in the measure? If those costs increase are they just passed on, through the levy, to the suppliers? As this is effectively a Government-owned company, does the Minister have any way of keeping those costs within reasonable bounds and can she guarantee that we will not be here in a year or two passing a further measure with a further increase in costs and a further levy, to the inconvenience of those smaller supplier companies in particular?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his review of how this all came about. I can tell him that, in this consideration, we have not gone back and reviewed the original proposal to set up the Low Carbon Contract Company, or the Electricity Supplier Payments Company, because it was agreed at the time of implementing electricity market reform that it would be an industry-led and managed arrangement as far as possible. I note the hon. Gentleman’s point that a Government guarantee would be much simpler, but he will recognise that that introduces an element of taxpayer risk as well as implications for the public sector balance sheet and so on. This was always intended to be an industry-led arrangement.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question about whether small energy companies would be discouraged, the evidence is that they have not been discouraged. As he will be aware, there are considerably more energy companies supplying to the UK market than there were in 2010. If my memory serves me correctly, there are well over 20—I am thinking 28, but I will have to confirm that number for him. Certainly, there is no evidence to suggest they have been put off by these arrangements. This measure seeks to simplify and improve the capacity of supplier obligations to be actualised so that they are not made in anticipation of payments but are much more closely related to the actual costs.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any means to control costs. As he would expect, costs are scrutinised very carefully. He will also be aware that a number of contracts for difference and a number of capacity market bids have been undertaken, although payments have not been made. Nevertheless, there is a big burden of contractual work that needs to be undertaken and that is where those operational costs have increased, but only by a small amount: in fact, it will be around 20p in additional operational costs on household electricity bills in 2016-17 at 2014 prices. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, we are very alert to the need to keep costs down—both the companies concerned and the Department of Energy and Climate Change—as well as to the importance of public consultation, and to scrutiny and debate in Parliament. We do not expect further significant increases in either budget, based on our expectations of current and future duties over the next couple of financial years.
Dr Whitehead
I would be grateful if the Minister wrote to me to confirm, ideally, or otherwise explain the true position on the overall costs of the counterparty body and the settlement body as far as capacity payments are concerned. As I have said, there seems to be a discrepancy between what is in the measure and what appears to be the total set out in the explanatory notes. It would be good to have that cleared up at the earliest possible stage.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I note that regulation 16 amends regulation 23 of the Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) Regulations 2014 by increasing the operational costs levy from 0.0397p to 0.0509p. That is a significant increase, and if the Minister is going to write to the Committee, I would like her to explain what that increase relates to, as it is a levy in relation to the operational costs of the CfD counterparty, and what she will do to bear down on that increase and make sure it does not go any further.
Andrea Leadsom
I do not think it is necessary to write to hon. Members, but I am happy to do so if my hon. and learned Friend would like me to. As I have explained, the purpose of the Low Carbon Contracts Company is to be the counterparty to contracts for difference. As those CfDs have begun to be allocated, the contractual work that the company is undertaking has escalated significantly. The operating costs have been reviewed closely by DECC and by the companies, and through parliamentary scrutiny, so further significant increases are not expected. However, as my hon. and learned Friend would expect, with the establishment of contracts and the potential for new contracts coming on board all the time, there has been an adjustment. I am happy to write to the Committee if my hon. and learned Friend would like me to—[Interruption.] He would like me to do so, so I certainly will.
As I am sure Members are aware, a key objective of the Government’s energy policy is to keep costs as low as possible as we transition to a low carbon economy. The changes we are seeking to make forward that objective by implementing a series of technical and administrative amendments that ensure the CfD scheme and the capacity market continue to operate with best value for money for consumers. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES (REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2016
DRAFT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES (REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) ORDER 2016
DRAFT POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2016.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2016 and the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2016.
John Penrose
It is good to have you in the Chair, Mr Howarth, guiding us with a deft touch as always. It is a wonderful coincidence of, I am sure, intentional parliamentary scheduling to have a statutory instrument about Welsh elections on St David’s day. I begin with an abject apology to the rest of the Committee for not sporting a leek or a daffodil. With a Celtic name like Penrose, I thought I would be pushing my luck as a Cornishman by turning up wearing Welsh apparel. Points of order would have been raised and all sorts of terrible things, but I am with everybody in sympathy at least.
These rules are a vital but, I hope, uncontroversial and rather humdrum piece of electoral plumbing. In this country, we often take it for granted that elections will be run professionally and efficiently by high-quality electoral administrators, but to run smoothly the system depends on detailed legislation such as the orders before us.
The draft orders make changes to the rules for the administration and conduct of elections to the National Assembly for Wales and of police and crime commissioners. In particular, they make provision for the combination of polls at Welsh Assembly and PCC elections when they are held on the same day. They also apply provisions in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 and associated secondary legislation, which makes a number of changes to the rules for UK parliamentary elections, to Welsh Assembly elections as well.
All three draft orders are similar to measures that have been considered in earlier debates on the conduct of other elections and referendums. The changes have already been made to the PCC elections in a previous instrument that was considered and approved in an earlier Committee sitting. We have consulted on the instruments with the Electoral Commission and with other stakeholders such as the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Welsh Government, and we have incorporated many or all of their conclusions and proposals in the draft orders.
The draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2016 requires a poll at an Assembly election to be combined with a poll at a PCC election when both polls are held on the same day, as will happen on 5 May 2016. The order therefore designates the constituency returning officer at the Assembly election as the lead returning officer when an ordinary Assembly election is combined with an ordinary PCC election. It ensures that voters will cast their vote at the same polling station for both polls and that a different coloured ballot paper is used for each poll. Returning officers will be able to issue a single poll card and may issue to postal voters one postal ballot pack with two different sets of voting papers inside instead of two separate packs for each election.
The order updates the forms used by voters, such as poll cards and postal voting statements, to make the voting process more accessible, and includes Welsh language versions of the forms. The order provides for names of candidates to appear on the ballot paper for the election of regional members; for police community support officers to enter polling stations and counting venues under the same conditions as police constables; and that voters waiting in a queue at the close of poll can still vote. It also brings postal voting in Welsh Assembly elections in line with other elections elsewhere in the UK.
In response to a recommendation by the Electoral Commission, the order increases the spending limits for candidates at Assembly elections to take account of the effects of inflation, which means that the maximum amount that candidates standing in an Assembly constituency may spend is increased from £7,150 to £8,700 as well as an additional 9p, up from 7p, for every elector in a county constituency and an additional 6p, up from 5p, for every elector in a borough constituency.
Following a recommendation by the Electoral Commission, the order provides for a fee for a returning officer at an Assembly election to be reduced if they have performed inadequately at the election. That mirrors equivalent provision made for UK parliamentary elections in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.
The second order simply corrects errors that appeared in the Welsh language sections of some of the forms set out in the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2016. [Interruption.] I hear tutting from the Labour Front Bench. I am sure that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will put right any interpretations in the language of heaven that are needed when he makes his contribution.
The third order complements the Assembly order by making equivalent changes to the rules for PCC elections held on the same day as Assembly polls. It also provides that when PCC and Assembly elections are combined, the voting areas for the purposes of the PCC election in Wales are Assembly constituencies rather than local authority areas. That ensures that both polls are administered on the ground using the same area—Assembly constituencies—and a single returning officer. For the PCC poll, the returning officer for a voting area will be the local returning officer who is the constituency returning officer for the Assembly constituency. The Electoral Commission and electoral administrators in Wales specifically requested that we aligned the voting areas in that way to help the effective running of the combined polls. The commission commented that the change reflected its view and that of returning officers in Wales, and it prevents a potential risk to the effective administration of the election.
I believe and hope that the changes in the orders concerning the conduct and administration of the two sets of polls will help to increase voter participation, support the integrity of our electoral system and ensure that the polls scheduled for May 2016 are run effectively.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here on St David’s day. Even though we are considering matters Welsh by accident rather than design, it is nevertheless great to be here and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. As the Minister said, many of the changes have been discussed and debated in a different form. Many of the proposals apply to the National Assembly for Wales and bring legislation into line with the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.
I want to focus, in particular, on police and crime commissioner elections. As we all know, the first PCC elections, which were held in November 2012, had a lamentable turnout: 15% over England and Wales and a mere 14.9% in Wales. Many of us can refer to incidents where no one turned up at polling stations. I can think of at least one where only one ballot was cast, and that was a postal ballot. All of us who believe in democracy want to see a bigger turnout and greater public engagement, so it is important to learn lessons.
One clear lesson is that it was a mistake to hold those first elections in the middle of winter; these elections, of course, will be on 5 May. There is also an important lesson to learn on publicity. Information was provided by post and websites were established to give information to all electors about the system and the role of PCCs, but no collective support was provided by the Government to allow candidates to disseminate their message; it was essentially up to them to take on that responsibility.
It is true to say that in Wales we had a bit of a shambles with regard to the bilingual forms, which were provided but only late in the day. The Opposition said at the time that a special order was required to allow for bilingual PCC election ballot papers and the Government did not accept that initially. They did accept that eventually but, because that was late in the day, locally ballot papers were provided, according to the law, in English-only in Wales.
When the Government eventually brought forward a statutory instrument, bilingual forms were created. However, that meant that the forms produced initially had to be destroyed, and the total cost was £130,000. We might say that that is not a massive amount, but nevertheless that was £130,000 wasted. Had the Government only listened to the advice provided by Her Majesty’s Opposition, that money would have been saved. I am pleased that that lesson has been learnt and that the hands of the Home Office, who I think were the guilty culprits, are no longer to be seen and that the Cabinet Office has dealt with it in what is hopefully a more efficient, effective and sensible way.
These elections, which will be held at a better time of year when people will be more likely to come out of their homes to vote, will coincide with the local elections in England and with the Welsh Assembly elections. That they will be held at the same time as the Assembly elections is to be welcomed, but there are risks and potential difficulties nevertheless. The Electoral Commission, in an appendix to a report entitled “Combination with the Welsh General Election in May 2016”, identified three potential “significant risks”. First, it said:
“There will be two different electoral systems in use, incorporating three methods of voting, and three ballot papers.”
That is perfectly correct. The additional member system is used for Welsh Assembly elections, so constituency and regional list Members are elected, providing a proportional representation top-up. The PCC elections, of course, will use a supplementary vote system, as they did last time. That is a form of PR, but it is a different form. Understandably, there is the potential for a great deal of confusion among electors if they are being asked on the same day, in the same voting booth, using two different forms of proportional representation and on three ballot papers. That puts great responsibility on the Government to ensure that proper information is provided and proper guidance is given to voters so that there is no unnecessary confusion.
The Electoral Commission’s second point is:
“The voting areas for the two sets of elections are different. In Wales, the PCC elections are based on 22 local authority areas within four police areas whereas the Assembly general election is based on 40 Assembly constituencies within five electoral regions.”
That is complicated in itself, although I know that the Government recognise that, so hopefully they have introduced measures to minimise confusion and have more streamlining in place.
The Electoral Commission’s third point is:
“Police area returning officers are appointed by the UK Government while Assembly Regional Returning Officers are appointed by Welsh Government Ministers. Consequently, different individuals may be appointed to cover the coterminous electoral areas of North Wales and Dyfed Powys/Mid and West Wales. In South Wales and Gwent police areas and the three South Wales Assembly regions, there will be two PAROs but three Regional Returning Officers”.
That is immensely complicated, so I would welcome further explanation from the Minister on how those complications are to be tackled so that we have smooth elections and smooth counts afterwards.
Those risks must be effectively surmounted and tackled. The Minister noted that I tutted earlier on because one of the orders is to correct an error in the use of the Welsh language. The explanatory memorandum says:
“Errors in the Amendment Order were identified by deputy counsel to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments prior to formal consideration by the Committee. The department was invited to withdraw and re-lay the draft but decided against doing that, and instead has corrected the errors in a combination of correction slip and this instrument.”
That seems a rather strange way of correcting drafting mistakes. As is stated later in the explanatory notes, the mistakes appear
“in the Welsh language sections of the forms that are included in the Amendment Order.”
With regard to the procedure, I wanted to ask a Minister whether that is the right way to correct mistakes. Would it not be better to have an entirely new document so that we can be clear about what is being corrected and the mistakes that were made?
Although election administration is not really yet a devolved matter, would it not have made sense in this time of devolution to have liaised properly with the Welsh Government, who have more expertise and knowledge of the Welsh language than the central Government, to ensure that such mistakes were not made in the first place? It always makes sense to have co-ordination and co-operation. Devolution, as the Government often say, is based on mutual respect, as it should be, and the Welsh Assembly is the custodian of the Welsh language, so would it not make sense to have a much stronger dialogue with the Assembly and the Welsh Government to ensure that such mistakes do not happen?
My other question is fairly detailed, so if the Minister wants to respond in writing, I am happy to accept that. It relates to the boundary between the South Wales police area and the Gwent police area. Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, which is both a parliamentary constituency and a Welsh Assembly constituency, straddles two local authority areas—Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and Caerphilly County Borough Council—and the two police areas. What exactly is proposed to streamline that particular situation does not seem clear. There is a duality of contradictory boundaries. Will the Minister provide some explanation regarding the boundaries in that case, which seems to be anomalous in many ways and requires particular attention?
Following those few remarks, I can indicate that the Opposition will of course support the sensible, constructive and necessary amendments in the draft orders. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
John Penrose
I will happily respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points, taking each of them in turn. First, however, I want to welcome the general support with which he finished his remarks. It is welcome to hear that the proposals have cross-party support. I was hoping—indeed, he has confirmed it—that this would be an uncontroversial piece of important electoral plumbing and that there would be no need to find party political differences in it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that turnout at the first police and crime commissioner elections was relatively low. He and I are both hoping for a dramatically higher turnout this time. I agree with him that the omens are propitious and positive, partly because, as he says, the elections will be held in May, which is usually reckoned to be a better time of year, but also because other elections are taking place on the same day. Given the overlap with other elections, there may be occasional concerns about complexity, but there is no doubt that it can also help to drive up turnout. I hope that democrats on all sides of different political divides will want to see a better turnout than last time at polling stations in early May. I obviously cannot comment on whether the Cabinet Office will do a better job of electoral administration than the Home Office, as the hon. Gentleman kindly suggested, so we shall have to wait and see. With any luck it will be a step in the right direction.
The hon. Gentleman then talked about some risks—as opposed to serious issues—that were flagged up by the Electoral Commission, particularly in relation to the three different forms of voting being used on the same day. There are two varying forms of alternative or proportional voting and one more traditional first-past-the-post system. He is absolutely right that there is always the potential for confusion, but when we have combined polls in all parts of the UK, in practice we tend to see that voters are pretty canny and capable of coping. Providing that the electoral administration is done in such a way as to have separate ballot papers for each election—most commonly the ballot papers are of different colours—that allows voters to draw a mental distinction between the one, two or three different polls on the same day and to politically and intellectually change gear, as it were, as they fill out one and then move on to the next.
The only time we have had serious concerns about that sort of thing was in Scotland back in 2007, when there was an attempt to combine some ballot papers. That created some concerns but, broadly speaking, electors seem to be capable of coping pretty well. One would obviously not want to push the point too far, but we are not expecting the different elections to be a major problem on this occasion.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned voting errors. I did mention in my speech the point about electoral administration, but it bears repeating. The instrument provides that where PCC and Assembly elections are combined in the voting areas, the polls for the PCC election will be administered on the ground using the same voting area—that is, the Assembly constituencies—and by a single returning officer. That is a crucial point. The returning officer for a voting area will be the local returning officer for the PCC poll, who is the returning officer for the Assembly constituency. I hope that means that the administration is a great deal clearer and that lines of accountability and responsibility are very clear indeed. The arrangement directly matches the recommendations of both the Electoral Commission and the electoral administrators in Wales. I hope that has maximised our chances of success and clarity on that point.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned concerns about Welsh language forms. As I said, there was a great deal of concern last time when problems were discovered with the accuracy of the translation of Welsh language forms. I can confirm that two things have happened since then. First, additional checks are now in place to ensure that such a thing is much less likely to happen—it was not terribly likely in the first place, but it is even less likely now. Secondly, as I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned, electoral administration is one of the matters that will be devolved when the Wales Bill has passed through Parliament and become the Wales Act, so this might be the very last time we have to debate the issue in this place; in future it will be dealt with by the Welsh Government in Cardiff.
Wayne David
I very much hope that such matters can be dealt with by the Assembly in Cardiff, but over the past few days things have moved on, with the Secretary of State indicating that his own draft Bill is not fit for purpose and going back to the drawing board. It might be quite a while before we have such a Bill before us.
John Penrose
I hesitate to put words in his mouth—I am sort of paraphrasing—but I think that the Secretary of State said that the Bill would none the less be reintroduced in the second Session of this Parliament, so the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long. If he can possess his soul in patience, I hope that he, and everybody else who is in favour of devolution—I hope that is everybody—will be reassured and will look forward to the result.
The hon. Gentleman asked a rather technical question about the running of the poll in the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency. I have been searching for inspiration and will now assay an answer for him—we will see how it goes. He is absolutely right to say that the constituency is the only one to cross a police area boundary. The PCC order amends the definition of voting area for PCC elections where they are combined with Assembly elections so that both sets of elections can be administered on the basis of the same voting area—that is, Welsh Assembly constituencies, as I was just reminding the Committee—by a single returning officer. That will facilitate the running of the polls.
The Electoral Commission also issues guidance to returning officers to help them in their planning for the poll and to carry out their duties. I am sure that the commission will be able to give specific help to the administrators running the poll in that constituency, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it will perhaps require some special focus and some special guidelines or guidance to ensure that it is done cleanly and effectively.
I hope that I have covered all the questions and provided everybody with answers. With that, I commend all three orders to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES (REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) ORDER 2016
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2016.—(John Penrose.)
DRAFT POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2016
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2016.—(John Penrose.)
Petition
Compensation for negligent medical treatment
Driving Instructors (Registration) Bill
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind the Committee that electronic devices should be turned to silent mode and that refreshments are not allowed during sittings. This is a private Member’s Bill, so we have no programme motion. In this case, we have no amendments either. We must finish our proceedings by 11.25 am.
Clause 1
Re-entry in the register following expiry of registration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. The Bill provides for two deregulatory measures to simplify the registration of driving instructors, which I am sure will be welcomed by all members of the Committee. The first simplifies the process for re-entry in the register of approved driving instructors if a driving instructor’s registration has expired, and the second allows them to request voluntary removal from the register and to return at a later date under the simplified process. The provisions update existing legislation to make it more appropriate for ADIs working in the industry today. They introduce changes to make things more family-friendly by removing barriers that have impeded instructors returning to the profession after they have left, perhaps to raise a family, to deal with health problems or for other reasons. The requirements for individuals to become registered ADIs are set out in part 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Clause 1 deals with re-entry in the register of approved driving instructors following expiry of registration. Amendments are being made to part 5 of the 1988 Act to allow instructors who apply under that Act to have their names re-entered in the register if they have been off the register for between one and four years. The purpose of the amendments is to introduce a simpler, alternative provision into legislation for instructors wanting to return to the register, so that they do not have to requalify by taking the full three-part examination again, as happens currently.
The simplified provision is for re-entry in the register via a standards check, so the process for ADIs who wish to return will be quicker and much more straightforward. The time and effort of preparing for and taking repeat examinations can be used more effectively in earning a living and providing a service for learner drivers, with subsequent benefits for the ADIs concerned, learner drivers and road safety. In the main, ADIs operate as sole traders and therefore fall under the microbusiness definition, so any cost savings would definitely be beneficial. As systems are already in place to book and manage standards checks, there will be no increased burden on the public sector, which all members of the Committee will welcome.
I am delighted to say that the amendments do not lower standards to make it easier to be re-entered in the register; they merely simplify the route. The standards check is the same as the one that all registered ADIs must take and pass during their registration period to continue delivering driving instruction. The standards check is to ensure that those wishing to be re-entered in the register can still deliver driving instruction to a suitable standard. It is for this reason that instructors can apply via this route only if they are within four years of their name being removed from the register. This period is comparable to the four-year registration period.
For re-entry in the register via the simplified route, ADIs will be allowed up to three attempts at the standards check. Three times is the most that current ADIs are allowed to attempt a standards check during their four-year registration period. If they have not passed the standards check at the final attempt, they will have to requalify via the existing route. The simplified route is not open to those who have been removed from the register due to disciplinary reasons. The clause provides provisions to safeguard against any lowering of standards and to prevent misuse of the simplified route by instructors who have been removed for disciplinary reasons; for refusing to undergo a periodic check of their continued ability to deliver competent driving instruction. Those instructors, who would have been removed from the register to protect public safety, will have to apply for re-entry via the existing route by undertaking the full three-part examination.
Clause 2 deals with voluntary removal from the register and subsequent re-entry. It allows those ADIs who wish to take a break from the profession to voluntarily request that their name be removed from the register without their registration having expired or it being treated as a removal for disciplinary reasons. That this was not included in the original Act beggars belief, but the Committee will be pleased that we are tidying up the anomaly. The clause also allows the same ADIs to request re-entry in the register within the specified time period, via the simplified route provided for under clause 1. Currently, there is no provision in legislation for ADIs who do not wish to remain on the register to have their name voluntarily removed—extraordinary. This is a problem, because a person taking a break from delivering driving instruction can end up missing a standards check, resulting in disciplinary proceedings for non-compliance being recorded against their file, which is pretty unfair. That could cause complications if they wish to return.
Today, given 21st century working practices, a person is much more likely to take a career break, perhaps for educational, family or other commitments, than they would have been when the registration system was originally introduced in the 1960s. Updating the legislation to allow for voluntary removal from the ADI register in order to take a career break acknowledges modern working practices.
The amendments are also made in recognition of the fact that instructors who suffer from serious health issues may need to take a break from the profession. Instructors in such circumstances will be able to request voluntary removal from the register, secure in the knowledge that their removal was not for refusal to undergo a standards check and, therefore, was not treated as a disciplinary reason. We hope that this, and the introduction of simplified procedures for a return to the register, albeit within a certain timeframe, will provide sufficient opportunities for ADIs to return to the profession.
The registrar is required to acknowledge to the applicant the request and the subsequent removal of their name from the register. That will provide applicants with a known cut-off date for applying for re-entry in the register. Accordingly, a safety provision is also introduced for a person’s name to be restored to the register with no penalty if it was removed by mistake or if someone acted maliciously to have it removed.
Clauses 3 and 4 replicate the amendments provided for in clauses 1 and 2 as if schedule 6 to the Road Safety Act 2006, which amends part 5 of the 1988 Act, was commenced—I hope that is as clear as mud. Part 5 of the 1988 Act, which contains the primary legislative provisions on driving instruction, has a number of uncommenced amendments contained in the 2006 Act. These amendments would allow the driving instruction regime, which currently applies to cars, to be extended to regulate instruction in other classes of motor vehicle. The Government are not currently pursuing the extension of the regulation of driving instruction, so that is not part of the Bill. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Consequential amendments, repeals and revocations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this capacity, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West on introducing this Bill to simplify the arrangements for driving instructors. As he has pointed out, some of the legislation and rules for the industry are simply out of date and due for a change, and some do not reflect current working practices and are unfair on ADIs.
There are two big ideas in the Bill. The first is to help people back into the industry through the removal of the requirement to redo the three-part qualification. Last year, 2,500 ADIs allowed their registration to lapse but only 1%—just 25 ADIs—applied to requalify. I suspect that number would increase if we removed the barrier to re-entry that they currently face. It would save time, taking the requalification process down from 34 to six weeks. That significant change would allow ADIs to recommence their careers much more easily, and the time saved could be spent earning a living and helping more people to achieve their driving licence.
The second idea is voluntary removal from the register and the updating of procedures to help ADIs. Last year, 610 ADIs asked to be removed from the register as they had other commitments, but legally the registrar cannot do that; they can be removed only for reasons of conduct, competence or discipline. That is utterly unfair and does not reflect what is happening in people’s lives and careers. The change to the rules is therefore very positive. The Government support the Bill and will continue to do so as it progresses through this House and the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Sir David Amess
Thank you, Mr Crausby, for your patient chairmanship of the Committee, even though it has not lasted long. I thank the Doorkeepers and the Hansard reporters for the support they have given to the Committee. I thank all colleagues who have made the effort to be here in very large numbers this morning to celebrate and put a smile back on the faces of driving instructors. I also thank the Clerk, without whose guidance we would not have been able to function so well as a Committee.
Andrew Jones
I would like to build upon the point made by my hon. Friend by thanking you, Mr Crausby, the Committee as a whole and all the staff for their help. I should also put on the record my congratulations to my hon. Friend on getting the Bill this far. I look forward to seeing it on the statute book in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (First sitting)
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning everyone, on this great St David’s day. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. We must switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee will not be allowed during the sittings. Our first procedural consideration today is the order of consideration, and I understand that we will take both that and the sittings motion formally.
Ordered,
That the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedules 2 and 3, Clause 3, Schedule 4, Clause 4, Schedules 5 and 6, Clause 5, Schedules 7 to 9, Clause 6, Schedule 10, Clauses 7 and 8, Schedule 11, Clause 9, Schedule 12, Clause 10, Schedule 13, Clause 11, Schedule 14, Clause 12, Schedule 15, Clauses 13 to 15, Schedule 16, Clauses 16 to 20, Schedule 17, Clauses 21 to 25, Schedule 18, Clause 26, Schedule 19, Clause 27, Schedule 20, Clauses 28 to 32, Schedule 21, Clause 33, Schedules 22 and 23, Clause 34, Schedule 24, Clause 35, Schedule 25, Clause 36, Schedule 26, Clause 37, Schedule 27, Clauses 38 to 41, Schedule 28, Clause 42, Schedule 29, Clauses 43 to 45, Schedule 30, Clause 46, Schedule 31, Clause 47, Schedule 32, Clauses 48 to 68, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill.—(Mr Goodwill.)
Resolved,
That, if proceedings on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill are not completed at this day’s sitting, the Committee do meet—
(a) on Tuesdays when the House is sitting at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm; and
(b) on Thursdays when the House is sitting at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm.—(Mr Goodwill.)
The Chair
As a general rule, my fellow Chair, Mr Chope, and I do not intend to call starred amendments that have been tabled without adequate notice. The required notice period in Public Bill Committees is three working days, so amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on the following Tuesday. The selection list for today’s sittings, showing how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate, is available in the room and on the website. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same issue or on similar issues.
I intend to call first the Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group; other Members are then free to catch my eye. Any Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment, and before they sit down they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know in advance. I shall work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments.
Members, in particular those who are new to Committee, should note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which the amendments are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection and grouping list, and decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow separate stand part debates on individual clauses and schedules, following the debates on the relevant amendments.
Clause 1
Power to construct and maintain works for Phase One of High Speed 2
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I look forward to spending some happy days with you this week, Mr Hanson, discussing this important Bill.
Before I begin, I would like to take a short moment to set out what lies before us. The Committee sittings will enable line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, which will pave the way for a truly transformational railway. I am delighted that we have reached that landmark, and I would like to record the Government’s, and my own, sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) and his hybrid Bill Committee. That Select Committee sat for 17 months, examined the views expressed in almost 2,600 petitions, and heard evidence from some 1,600 petitioners. Many of the representations the Committee considered led to changes in the Bill that is before us. I look forward to the Committee sittings that lie ahead and to hearing points raised by Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Clause 1 concerns the power to construct and maintain works for phase 1 of High Speed 2. It authorises the nominated undertaker to construct and maintain the work specified in schedule 1 for the construction of phase 1 and other incidental works. This is a standard clause that is found in all works Bills.
Schedule 1 sets out the construction requirements for the scheduled works and provides permitted limits of deviation from the siting of works, as shown on the relevant plans. It also provides a description of the scheduled works. The permitted deviation limits have good precedents in other railways Acts, such as the Crossrail Act 2008 and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, and they reflect the fact that at this point the design of HS2 is, of necessity, at outline stage. Detailed design will come later and some flexibility is therefore essential. Any variation within the limits of deviation is controlled by the environmental minimum requirements.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It is a huge honour to appear for the first time as a Committee Front-Bench spokesperson, and to do so under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I will be guided by your wisdom and expertise as we proceed.
I thank the Minister for his courtesy and civility in the run-up to the Committee. It bordered on the comradely, but perhaps that stretches a point. I would also like to acknowledge the sterling work of members of the Select Committee. The Minister spoke about the number of petitions and the work that those Members undertook. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby). Both constituencies surrendered their Members for a considerable time, as did Preston to the north-west. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) did particularly well. I was regularly reminded of the considerable work undertaken by my good friend the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who never let an opportunity pass to tell me about the work he was doing. I thank the Clerks for their advice and guidance throughout my preparation.
I support clause 1, but I should like to make some preliminary observations and comments and raise some specific questions. I am mindful of the schedule we have set ourselves and I am confident that we will be able to adhere to it. There may be a number of clauses which deal with technical matters and will not trouble the Committee, but I crave its modest indulgence in making some introductory remarks on clause 1.
The Opposition welcome the Bill and are very supportive of it. However, our support is given on the strict basis and understanding that, at every turn, the HS2 project must produce the best possible outcomes for our country and value for money for the taxpayer. The project was amended and improved during preparations on the Bill and we would like to achieve further improvements through our amendments.
Happily, the Bill has broad cross-party support, and as an undertaking, HS2 will be truly transformational for our country, not only in terms of the speed and connectivity between London and Birmingham in the first instance, but onwards with phase 2 through to Crewe and Manchester and the entire north-west, with connectivity dividends up into Scotland. The same positivity applies to the transformational effects of the expansion from Birmingham through to the east midlands and Sheffield and Leeds, with greater connectivity for the north-east beyond Leeds from bimodal trains reuniting with the east coast conventional mainline and onwards up to Edinburgh.
HS2 is not simply about connectivity and the speed of connectivity. It has been said time and time again that the principal pay-off is increased capacity. There is agreement across the House that our Victorian rail infrastructure, remarkable as it is, simply cannot cope with the incredible increases we have seen, and continue to see, in the number of passenger journeys in the UK. It is in addressing capacity demands that HS2 comes into its own.
By virtue of the availability of HS2 services, the capacity relief to the conventional lines will be considerable, but it is widely recognised that improvements and investments in our conventional lines on the one hand, and in HS2 on the other, do not present an either/or choice. Indeed, as HS2 progresses towards construction, it is equally essential that much-needed investment in our conventional lines—greater electrification and other improvements right across the network—cracks on apace.
Investment in HS2 will not only address issues of capacity and the speed of journeys. The engineering, construction, employment and career opportunities that HS2 represents are colossal and provide immense opportunities for the companies and their skilled workforces and the talent pool that has developed through Crossrail. That can continue and grow, from Crossrail to HS2 phase 1 and beyond.
A great number of people will be able to look back on entire careers spent engaged in high-speed rail construction. HS2 is a wonderful opportunity for our country fully to demonstrate its capabilities. It is essential that we derive the maximum social value from this project for skills, employment and prosperity, not only in the long-term infrastructure dividends that will undoubtedly result from greater and more efficient interconnectivity between our great towns and cities, but from the construction of the infrastructure itself.
The Opposition wholly endorse and acknowledge the need to achieve a greater rebalancing of our economy, which includes the emphasis, while never neglecting London, as if we ever could or should, on growing our economy outside London and ensuring that we realise the full potential of all our country, including the terrific power and energy of the midlands, the north and beyond. The Leader of the Opposition has previously said that our aim is to
“stimulate the economy by increasing investment in new high-speed rail, creating jobs and connecting more towns and cities.”
While the tracks of HS2 are geographically defined and restricted as to where they go, the benefits of HS2 have no such limitations. Workers and companies across the UK will benefit from the opportunity to bid for and secure valuable contracts, and those companies will derive huge benefits for themselves and their workforces from Land’s End to John O’Groats. Indeed, I was immensely impressed at the turnout of companies in my own region in Darlington in Tees Valley a few weeks ago, and I was delighted to see such an appetite for the opportunities that HS2 presented.
While there is considerable agreement about this undertaking across the House, it is imperative that we all consider the matter with great care and consideration. The responsibility for progressing such a huge undertaking is an onerous one, and it is our duty as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to scrutinise this Bill properly with the utmost seriousness. For those reasons, we take the view that the voices of concern and objection should continue to be given every consideration. There are undoubtedly great concerns about the environmental damage and disruption often necessarily and unavoidably caused in places of natural beauty such as the Chilterns, and we will wish to ensure that such concerns are properly and fully considered.
Although the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has raised many concerns on behalf of her constituents and various campaign groups, it appears to me that those concerns have largely been addressed by the excellent Select Committee, as evidenced in its report and the amendments that have followed in terms of additional powers and supplementary environmental statements. I note specifically that some 60% of the rail route through the Chilterns will now be by way of tunnelling as opposed to surface track. That said, perhaps the Minister might further comment on the extent to which the concerns expressed about the Chilterns have been addressed.
Perhaps the Minister will also apply his mind to the concerns raised by the Select Committee. On page 42 of its report it noted:
“Chilterns petitioners were concerned about several hydrogeological issues.”
Those issues are listed: I will not read them out, save to say that they concern Wendover and the Misbourne, among others. The Committee requested that the promoter
“address the matter of hydrogeological surveying as a priority.”
Perhaps the Minister will comment on the current status.
Similarly, the concerns raised by the residents of Camden in London and their local authority, Camden Borough Council, about the extensive and long-term major disruption that will be caused by the major reconfiguration of Euston station are extremely serious. In our sittings, I will test the Government on how they have responded and on what modifications they can make to ameliorate the legitimate concerns of a community that will be subjected to major disruption at its heart for many years. This is a once in a lifetime—perhaps several lifetimes—opportunity to build something of real worth and value at Euston and to leave a legacy, in architectural and community terms, of which we can be proud. We wish to explore that issue in detail during our proceedings.
In January 2009, the Labour Government established High Speed 2 Ltd to examine the case for a new high-speed line and to identify a route between London and the west midlands. Our ambition was always that the line could be extended to reach Scotland. In our view, that ambition must be sustained. There have been innumerable consultations and revisions of the plan, and on 11 March 2010 the HS2 report and supporting studies were published, together with the Government’s Command Paper on high-speed rail. Government and Opposition parties have grappled with the interconnectivity with HS1 and will no doubt continue to do so, as we will with the intended linkage with Crossrail 2, especially at Euston, in the years ahead.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the considerable trade union support for HS2. There are people in the trade unions who think that HS2 does not go far enough, but if phase 1 is concluded on time and on budget, it will give us the confidence to look at other high-speed services in future.
We need detailed scrutiny to ameliorate the impact on communities, both urban and rural, of this incredibly ambitious undertaking. The project and the Bill have the Opposition’s support, but perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to answer my questions.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tone and the constructive way in which the Opposition are approaching this matter. As he says, this project was conceived under the Labour Government, and hopefully it will be delivered under a Conservative Government. The issues that he raised are at the forefront of our concerns. The Opposition wish to secure good value for money, and the Government share that view. Indeed, the UK is getting a reputation for delivering projects on time and on budget. We need look only at the Olympics, and Crossrail—or the Elizabeth line, as I am proud to say it will now be called—which is being delivered so efficiently.
The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of increasing capacity on our country’s railways. Perhaps we made a mistake in calling the project High Speed 2, because that focused attention on the speed at which the trains will travel. Indeed, if we are going to build a new railway line, we might as well build one to 21st-century standards, rather than another piece of Victorian infrastructure. The success of the railway industry since privatisation has resulted in a more than doubling of the number of passengers using our network from 750 million journeys per year to more than 1.6 billion. We are particularly aware that we need to continue to invest in the conventional network. Indeed, £44 billion has been allocated to upgrade the conventional line. Unfortunately, many passengers will suffer disruption at Easter because of the works that will be carried out over that period, in the same way as much of the work was carried out at Christmas.
We understand the importance of electrification, which will not just enable us to use the very best rolling stock, but will make our railways more sustainable. Were we not in an atmosphere of cross-party collaboration, I would mention how little electrification the previous Labour Government delivered, compared with this Government. I will gloss over that very quickly.
Andy McDonald
Before the Minister glosses over that too quickly, perhaps he would reflect on the fact that we inherited the disaster that was Railtrack. I would caution him against further journeys into the privatisation and break-up of our national rail infrastructure, because we might have to have those discussions about the terrible health and safety record all over again.
The Chair
Order. Clause 1 is general and I have allowed a very general debate, but it does concern the powers relating to HS2 construction. I hope the Minister can return to that theme.
Mr Goodwill
Thank you. I will not be drawn on that, Mr Hanson. I am sure the history books are being written as we speak. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the opportunities for jobs, apprenticeships and career development associated with the project. Indeed, many of the skills that have been developed on Crossrail, not least the tunnelling skills, will be very applicable to HS2.
The Government are in the process of setting up—indeed planning permission has been given—the HS2 college in Birmingham, with a satellite college in Doncaster, which has a long tradition of engineering excellence as the home of Sir Nigel Gresley, the Mallard and the Flying Scotsman, which has been so much in the news recently.
This is a long-term project and Lord Adonis was in at the start. Over the period of delivery, we might even have a situation in which the Opposition look slightly electable, so it is important that we continue to work with them. I have been working very closely with the leaders of the great cities of the north, those Labour Mayors and council leaders who understand the importance of HS2 for the north.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough is right to address the sustainability of the delivery of the project. I am proud that we have made it clear that this project will be delivered with no net environmental loss. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to the extensive tunnelling in the Chilterns. We also set up a community fund to allow projects in communities affected, and many of those will be environmental projects. I am also determined that the opportunities afforded by the land we are procuring are used to the full to increase cycling and walking along the route.
The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the issue of hydrogeology, which is something that our engineers are very concerned to address. A number of water courses will be bisected and a number of drainage issues that farmers have been concerned about will be addressed. HS1, currently our only high-speed line, has been shown to be particularly resilient against flooding. The flooding in the south-east two years ago caused widespread disruption to the conventional rail network, but HS1 was resilient and the drainage issues were addressed.
I understand the issue the hon. Gentleman raised about Camden. It is a densely populated part of London, and we will be delivering one of the biggest projects at Euston, including a massive upgrade to the underground station, which will benefit people in that area. Businesses may be concerned about how they will be affected, and I had lunch with the former right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Frank Dobson, in one of the restaurants in Drummond Street that could be affected by the construction. We made sure to listen to their concerns, particularly how their regular clientele can access the properties while the construction is going on.
We have a tremendous opportunity at Euston. The hon. Gentleman and I were both at a community engagement centre that has been set up for people who have questions about the construction and want to raise concerns about the delivery of the project, to ensure disruption can be minimised as far as possible. At all stages of the project, we will be sure to engage with communities so that they can be aware of likely disruption and we can mitigate it.
We have a tremendous opportunity at Euston to deliver a state-of-the-art railway station, such as the one at King’s Cross, which has been the centre for a genuine revitalisation of that area. I know the Secretary of State is keen to revitalise the Euston arch, the iconic symbol of Euston station, mirrored at the other end of the line in Birmingham with a similar arch. I hope we can build an iconic station that will be a centre for redevelopment in that area.
Andy McDonald
I wholeheartedly agree with him about the opportunity that Euston presents for something of great significance and worth. Does he also share my view that it is absolutely imperative that the focus does not shift too far from the needs of the community? As currently presented, Euston station represents something of a wall between communities in Camden. There is the issue of permeability. We talked about cycling and walking, but that must be an integral part of the plans for Euston as it progresses.
Mr Goodwill
That is right. Indeed, I noticed concerns about the development on Euston station and the importance of the impact on those who live in the vicinity. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has tabled a number of new clauses on Euston, and I suggest that we discuss this in more detail as part of the debate on those proposed new clauses.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Scotland. We need to make it absolutely clear that high-speed rail trains will arrive in Glasgow on day one of HS2. The so-called classic compatible trains will run through onto the existing network, so the time benefits and the capacity improvements will benefit those in Scotland. Indeed, I expect that there will be Scottish-crewed trains in those very early days.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the importance of connectivity with Crossrail. Old Oak Common will be a very important opportunity for people to alight from High Speed 2, get on to Crossrail—or the Elizabeth line, as I am delighted that we are calling it—and then connect with other locations within the city. We have calculated that about 30% of those coming into London will see Old Oak Common as their terminus, and there they will connect under Crossrail or other services to access Heathrow airport or other parts of London. In some cases, for example for Westminster tube station, although it will be slightly quicker to go via Euston and the Northern line, it will only take three minutes longer to use the Elizabeth line. Many Members of Parliament may choose to sacrifice that three minutes so that they can travel on the new Crossrail line.
I am sure that a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised will be explored in more detail over the days ahead, but I appreciate the very constructive way in which the Opposition have approached this. I look forward to working with them to ensure that the concerns they have raised are properly addressed, as we have already done on a number of occasions, both through the hybrid Bill Committee and the way that we have responded on issues such as compensation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2
Further provision about works
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 2 concerns further provision about works. It is not exactly a very exciting title, but it authorises the nominated undertaker to carry out any ancillary works that are necessary for the construction and maintenance of phase 1 of HS2, so long as such works remain within the limits as shown on the plans. This could be either railway works or, as stated in subsection (3),
“landscaping and other works to mitigate any adverse effects of the construction”.
Again, this is a standard clause for works Bills. Subsection (4) introduces schedule 2, which contains,
“further and supplementary provision about works”.
This schedule allows certain protective works, such as the preservation of buildings, tree management and so on, to be carried out for works authorised by the Bill. Schedule 2 also describes how the nominated undertaker can access properties along the route to carry out works and provide safeguards for those property owners.
Subsection (5) allows the nominated undertaker to divert the electricity lines identified in schedule 3 and carry out the ancillary works required for these diversions. I am sorry that I could not make it more exciting, but I beg to move that clause 2 stands part of the Bill.
Andy McDonald
I simply endorse the comments of the Minister and congratulate him on making something very dull very exciting—I enjoyed what he had to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 3
Highways
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 3 concerns highways and introduces schedule 4, which allows a nominated undertaker to carry out works to and otherwise affect highways. That includes creating new or improving existing highways, allowing means of access and stopping up roads. I beg to move that clause 3 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 4
Power to acquire land compulsorily
Andy McDonald
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 4, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
‘(6) When land is acquired under subsection (1), and is not otherwise specifically authorised under this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the reason for the acquisition before Parliament, and any such report must then also be published on the nominated undertaker’s website within 5 working days.”
If the Secretary of State compulsorily acquires land under subsection (1), and this is not otherwise specifically authorised under this Act, this amendment would require him to lay a report before Parliament setting out the reasons for the acquisition and publish the report on the website of the nominated undertaker within 5 working days.
Clause 4 says:
“The Secretary of State may acquire compulsorily so much of the land within the Act limits as may be required for Phase One purposes.”
We propose an additional paragraph at line 12. Let me draw the Committee’s attention to the wording of sub-section (1), which describes,
“land within the Act limits as may be required for Phase One purposes”,
and to clause 65, which helps us to interpret what phase 1 purposes are. It states:
“References in this Act to anything being done or required for “Phase One purposes” are to the thing being done or required… otherwise for the purposes of or in connection with Phase One of High Speed 2 or any high speed railway transport system of which Phase One of High Speed 2 forms or is to form part.”
By definition, that is a significant and wide-ranging power that is totally outwith the scope of phase 1 works or purposes, given the way that phase 1 purposes are described. I urge caution, because—unless the Minister persuades me otherwise— this is an area where we would be better advised to keep the restriction to phase 1 and not extend it for things that are going to come along in the future. I understand the logic of getting this out of the way now and for ever, but we have just been through an extensive Select Committee process, looking at the lands contained within phase 1 purposes. It is dangerous to introduce a power and authority at this stage that would extend that.
So we accept the need for the Secretary of State to have the power to compulsorily acquire land for the construction of HS2 phase 1, but we have concerns that as it stands the clause would grant the Secretary of State the broadest of powers that would not be subject to satisfactory overview from Parliament and would not be sufficiently transparent. The amendment would not curtail the powers of the Secretary of State that the clause seeks to grant, and would not impede the construction of the railway, but it would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament setting out the reasons for the acquisition of land under subsection (1), if it was not otherwise specifically authorised under the Act.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to be here in Committee. I have served on Bill Committees that have been likened to being on a long train journey in the same carriage with the same people for several weeks. However, at two weeks, this is a high-speed Committee.
I am a supporter of HS2 and have been a supporter of investment in our rail network for some time. HS2 is a very good project for my constituency and for Greater Manchester. That is widely recognised, and the justification is capacity. Even when a lot of publicity was initially given to the speed of the journey time, for me the project was always about capacity. The figures bear that out. Anyone who has caught a train at a particular time from Euston to Manchester Piccadilly will be familiar with our capacity problems. It is extremely clear when we look at the alternatives that patching the existing network or building a new line that is not a high-speed line will not meet the capacity need. The evidence is that we need a project such as this. We have support for the project from both sides of the House of Commons and we should proceed as soon as possible.
The consensus on the merits of the project means that we have to be particularly diligent in Committee to make sure that the powers granted to the Government in the Bill are proportionate and effective. As has been said, the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill went through an extremely good process and garnered more support for the project as it proceeded. I read clause 4, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough did, as a wide-ranging and permissive set of powers, particularly subsection (4). My reading of it makes it, in legal terms, the same as a compulsory purchase order. There will be understandable concerns that it will weaken accountability and the scrutiny that we gave the provision in the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill. We need to be careful that we do not lose some of the good will that we have garnered so far in this process. I hope that the Minister will make clear why the clause is drafted as widely as it is. Will he tell us the benefits of the clause over the reasonable amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough?
Mr Goodwill
As we have already discussed, clause 4 refers to powers to acquire land compulsorily. Compulsory powers are needed because they are a tried and tested method of delivering major infrastructure projects. We have provided safeguards for property owners that go beyond the statutory requirements under normal compulsory purchase rules. For example, we have introduced the voluntary purchase scheme for properties between 60 and 120 metres from the centre of the railway and the need-to-sell scheme for those who have suffered perceived blight due to the railway. The latter has no geographical limit.
The detail of the modifications is set out in the schedule. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about the importance of capacity. We need to be clear that when we talk about capacity, we are talking about people standing on trains. On most weekday mornings about 4,000 or 5,000 people are standing on trains into Euston and a smaller but still significant number are standing on trains into Birmingham New Street.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough mentioned clause 65(c). This does not seek to purchase land specifically for phase 2; it relates only to land within limits and does not give a general power to acquire land. While I am not against the flow of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I believe that we have already addressed his fears in the way we have drafted the Bill. Indeed, clause 4(1) contains the power to acquire all land required for the scheme. The Bill divides that land into different categories. The main category is land within the limits of deviation for the work set out in schedule 1. Other land needed for construction and ancillary purposes is specified and identified in schedules 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 16, together with the purpose for which that land is required. There is, therefore, no land within clause 4(1) that is not specifically authorised for compulsory purchase.
Andy McDonald
Just before the Minister loses the thread of that line of argument, I am particularly concerned with the definition and interpretation at clause 65(c). I know that the Minister is advising us this morning that the works we are talking about are delineated and specified opposite the schedules and the lands within them for phase 1, but by any reasonable interpretation, in my view, if we are now extending that to any high-speed rail transport system, of which phase 1 of High Speed 2 forms part, the necessary conclusion of that is that we are now getting into lands potentially for phase 2a and phase 2b, and we should not be creating a power in a Bill entitled High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill that will ultimately cover lands elsewhere. As the Minister has acknowledged, it is a wide-ranging power. Does he accept the point that it extends it too far?
The Chair
Before we continue, for Members’ interest and observation, clause 65(c) will be reached later and while reference can be made to it now, we are dealing with amendment 10 to clause 4 and we should keep our comments to the general issues around that.
Mr Goodwill
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the clause relates only to land within limits and does not create a general power to acquire land. Indeed, as I already mentioned, the land needed for construction and ancillary purposes is already identified in schedules 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 16, together with the purpose for which that land is required. I understand why the hon. Gentleman might be concerned that this could be interpreted as giving more general rights, but the actual powers for compulsory purchase are very limited by those schedules. I respectfully suggest that this amendment is essentially an unnecessary duplication of the Bill. I hope that this clarification will reassure the hon. Gentleman so that he can withdraw it.
Andy McDonald
I note your words of caution about cross-referring, Mr Hanson. I will limit my comments to saying that I do not think we have heard sufficient reassurance from the Minister that the powers will not be extended to lands and plans that have not been specified at this stage. In the absence of the reassurance I had hoped for, I wish to press the matter to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Goodwill
I hope the Opposition will understand that, although we appreciate their concerns, those have been addressed and the reassurances, which I hope they will look at again, do stand the test of legal scrutiny.
Clause 4 involves a power to acquire land compulsorily. It provides the Secretary of State with a power compulsorily to acquire land outlined in the Bill plans, and within the limits where such land is required for phase 1 of HS2. Compulsory purchase is always contentious. Many people will already be aware that their land might well be acquired in that way.
Subsection (2) introduces schedule 5, which describes the land to be acquired and the purpose for which it may be acquired. That is not the land required for the scheduled works but land required for ancillary works, including environmental mitigation, utility diversions and the re-provision of diverted public rights of way.
The clause further provides that the normal legislative regime relating to compulsory acquisition is to apply, subject to the modifications set out in schedule 6. The purpose of the modification is to streamline the acquisition process, as Parliament will already have given approval to the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 5
Acquisition of rights in land
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 5 involves the acquisition of rights in land and provides the Secretary of State with the power to acquire rights in land, such as access over it, rather than the land itself, for the purpose of phase 1 of HS2.
Subsection (2) introduces schedule 7, which specifies land where restrictive covenants can be imposed for the protection of land above proposed tunnels and the preservation of ground reprofiling, as set out in column 3 of the table in the schedule. It will ensure that no future changes are made that detrimentally affect the ability to deliver, maintain or operate phase 1 of HS2.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 6, on acquisition of part of land, introduces schedule 10, which provides an alternative procedure to that set out in the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, relating to the acquisition to only part of a house, building or factory. The alternative procedure applies where notice of the acquisition of part of the property is given, together with a copy of the clause and schedule 10. Provision for a similar alternative procedure was made by the Crossrail Act 2008 and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 7
Acquisition of airspace
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 7 refers to the acquisition of airspace. It allows the Secretary of State to use the power under clause 4(1) to compulsorily acquire airspace only, rather than the land beneath it, for the purpose of aerial work, which includes work on bridges and overhead cables. The clause provides that where the Secretary of State needs to acquire only airspace, a landowner cannot require the Secretary of State to compulsorily purchase the land beneath it. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Acquisition of subsoil or under-surface
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 8, which logically follows on, refers to the acquisition of subsoil or under-surface. It allows the Secretary of State to compulsorily purchase only the subsoil or under-surface of land within limits for works such as tunnelling. Where the Secretary of State acquires only the subsoil or under-surface, he cannot be compelled to purchase the surface land, except where a sub-surface acquisition impacts on part of a building and could therefore have a material detrimental impact on the remainder of the property.
Subsection (4) introduces schedule 11, which in specified cases restricts the compulsory powers of acquisition to subsoil or under-surface of land and surface access rights. Table 1 of the schedule details land where only subsoil more than 9 metres below the surface can be compulsorily acquired—mostly for deep tunnels. Table 2 identifies land where subsoil more than 9 metres below the surface, together with surface access rights, can be compulsorily acquired.
For clarification, under-surface is material below the surface to a depth of 9 metres, whereas subsoil is material below a depth of 9 metres.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 9
Highway subsoil
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Just when you thought that we had covered absolutely everything, we move to clause 9, which refers to highway subsoil. It allows the nominated undertaker to use any subsoil beneath the “highway” within the Bill limits, which is required for the purpose of construction and maintenance of works authorised by the Bill without the need formally to acquire the subsoil or any interest in it. This does not apply to cellars, vaults, archways or other structures that form part of the building fronting on to a highway.
Subsections (3) and (4) introduce schedule 12, which lists the highway land where the powers to take subsoil or compulsorily acquired interest in land cannot be exercised except in the case of street works. Subsection (5) provides that, in the case of highways in the land specified in the table in paragraph 1 of schedule 11, only subsoil that is more than 9 metres beneath the level of the surface may be taken, but street works can be carried out.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 10
Termination of power to acquire land
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Having discussed the powers to acquire land, we now move to the termination of power to acquire land. Clause 10 sets out an expiry period for compulsory purchase powers of five years from the date of Royal Assent. The clause allows the Secretary of State to extend that period by another five years by order. Any order extending the time limit for the exercise of these powers is subject to special parliamentary procedure. For clarification, special parliamentary procedure is set out in the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 and allows parliamentary scrutiny of that proposal. The period can be exceeded only once in relation to any particular land.
Subsection (4) introduces schedule 13, which enables land owners, in the event of an extension to the time limit, to require the Secretary of State to acquire their property interest and, if he decides not to, the compulsory purchase powers over the property interest will cease. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
I will be very brief, Mr Hanson. I want to ask the Minister about a point of fact. I am confident that the programme for building the first phase of HS2 will be completed within the timescale by 2016. However, under clause 10, the power to acquire land comes into force when the Act is passed, which I assume will be some time during the course of 2016. Under subsection (1), both powers remain in force for five years, so up until some point in 2021. However, there is a catch-out in subsection (2), which gives the Secretary of State the power to extend for another five years if needed, which would take us to some time in 2026. What happens if by some ill fate the delivery of phase 1 is delayed beyond 2026 and the Secretary of State needs to purchase some land 10 years after the Bill becomes an Act? The straightforward answer is that there will be no delay, and I am confident of that, but let us consider the worst-case scenario: what would happen if the project went beyond 2026, say by six months or a year, and it was discovered that land needed to be purchased?
Mr Goodwill
I hope that I can allay my right hon. Friend’s fears about those matters. First, the period can be extended only once in relation to any particular land. For projects with long construction periods, such flexibility enables staged purchase where appropriate, so that landowners can keep their property interests for as long as possible and Government ownership of private property is reduced until required. Indeed, some landowners—farmers or people using land for other reasons—might want to hold on to their land for as long as possible. However, it is right that such powers are time-limited; it would not be appropriate for the Government to have a permanent right to take property, as that would cause landowners great uncertainty. As I have already said, subsection (4) introduces schedule 13, which enables landowners in the event of an extension of the time limit to require the Secretary of State to acquire their property interests. If such acquisition is decided against, the compulsory purchase powers over the property will cease.
We are determined to build the project on time and on budget, so in many ways it is a case of braces and belt, to ensure that we have those powers if needed. However, if delivery was delayed and new land was needed, we could seek further powers using the Transport and Works Act 1992 or a development consent order. We will acquire land well in advance of its use. Indeed, landowners are empowered, in that they are not kept waiting for ever and a day for compulsory purchase powers to be brought into force. Rather, they can force the Government to purchase their land, to enable them to move on—they may well have other plans within their business that they want to take forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 11
Amendments to this Act consequential on the Housing and Planning Act 2016
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 11 introduces schedule 14, which makes a number of amendments to the Bill that are consequential to provisions being made by part 7 of the Housing and Planning Bill regarding the compulsory purchase regime. That Bill is currently in the Lords, and it is expected to have passed through the parliamentary process in this Session. If amendments relating to the compulsory purchase provisions are made to that Bill, we will need to consider whether further amendments need to be made to this Bill. Once again, we are in braces and belt territory.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 12
Extinction of rights over land
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 12 relates to the extinction of rights over land and introduces schedule 15, which seeks to extinguish private rights and any general rights of access over land where such land is required for phase 1 of HS2. Those who suffer loss due to extinguishment would be entitled to compensation under the normal compensation provisions. Provisions for extinguishing rights have been included in the Crossrail Act 2008 and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, and similar provisions apply to compulsory acquisition by local authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 13
Extinction of rights of statutory undertakers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 13 relates to the extinction of rights of statutory undertakers; it mirrors much of the previous clause. It applies provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that provide a process by which any apparatus of a statutory undertaker on such land may be removed and related rights over the land extinguished. Clause 13 is subject to the protective provisions that detail statutory undertakers in schedule 32, which makes provision for the diversion or protection of their apparatus.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Exclusion of new rights of way
Andy McDonald
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 14, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
‘(3A) Nothing in this section shall prevent the nominated undertaker, or other owners of railway stations, from establishing any new right of way within or over railway stations that are used for Phase One purposes.”
This amendment would provide that Clause 14 shall not prevent the nominated undertaker or other owners of railway stations from establishing new rights of ways within or over railways stations used for Phase One purposes.
I rise to reassure people that I have not lost the power of speech and to give you something of a rest, Mr Hanson. Clause 14 deals specifically with the exclusions of new rights of way. Our amendment would add new subsection (3A) to the clause. The clause as drawn is accurate and proper, but we simply want to leave a permissive option for new rights of way to be created. The amendment speaks primarily to the issues arising at Euston station and the concerns expressed by Camden Council and a number of local groups and individuals who may be impacted by construction works as the station is developed, but it is also applicable to any other station on the network.
As regular travellers to London, each of us has probably used Euston station at some point, although the Minister and I are more regular users of the sister station at King’s Cross. I hope that the wonderfully ambitious structure at King’s Cross will ultimately be mirrored by something of equal measure at Euston. One thing that would strike you, Mr Hanson, on walking around Euston station is how imposing the station is for the communities on either side of it; it splits the area in half and sits there like a huge obstruction in the community. If planners and developers had a blank sheet of paper, they would not come up with that sort of design today.
HS2 Ltd has been engaged with Camden Council on the issue and there have been a number of assurances, one of which is a commitment to maintaining pedestrian rights of way. When Euston station is redeveloped, a right of way through the station would be desirable. That would prevent the station from obstructing travel for those who live near or wish to pass by, as is presently the case. When redeveloped, it is important that Euston station is as permeable as possible for local residents, whether they are cycling or on foot. I note that in his opening remarks the Minister made a comment about the need to protect and encourage cycling and walking routes as the station is developed. It is important that the station is as permeable as possible, but the Bill, as drafted, might frustrate any such moves. Clause 14 states that:
“No right of way may be acquired by prescription or user over land which—
(a) forms an access or approach to any railway infrastructure.”
Our concern is that the Bill might prevent a right of way being established through Euston station. That is what this amendments seeks to rectify, and not only for Euston, but for everywhere else. It is not just about the prohibition on the creation of rights of way, but more specifically about the ability deliberately to permit the creation of a right of way, where appropriate, that will address the needs of communities such as the ones around Euston. I do not wish to be too unkind, but Euston is not the prettiest or the most access-friendly station for the residents of Camden. They have the station in their midst and suffer the inconveniences caused by its impermeable mass. It is for those reasons that we consider the amendment to be entirely sensible and appropriate. It caters for that very contingency.
The amendment does not presuppose where such rights of way may lie, but one would hope that they would address the permeability issue at Euston and facilitate not only east-west access but north-south access. I stress that the amendment does not dictate where these rights of way should be but, in the context of this clause’s discussion of the exclusion of new rights of way, it provides for the contingency of the nominated undertaker to create new rights of way that would address these issues. I trust that the Minister can follow the sense of this. Having been at Euston himself, he will understand the point I am addressing. I hope that he will accept the amendment.
Mr Goodwill
I think that I can allay the hon. Gentleman’s fears. Clause 14 prevents rights of way from being
“acquired by prescription or user over land which…forms an access or approach to any railway infrastructure, and”
which is held for phase 1 of HS2. It is important to understand precisely what the term “acquired by prescription” means. It refers to the legal process of a right of way becoming established through use over a period of at least 20 years. It refers not to a new right of way but to a right of way that has been used in a certain part of the country. The process could be operated if a landowner tried to prevent that land from being used, because it could be argued that the right of way had been firmly established over 20 years. The term “acquired by prescription” does not refer to other types of right of way or access that the operator of the station may allow.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus on the tremendous opportunity that the borough of Camden and the area around Euston will have in the development of the station. Indeed, one immediate benefit will be that the new underground station will enable a connection between Euston Square underground station and the main Euston station, which is currently a short walk across the traffic-choked streets of London. That connection will be of immediate benefit to the people of Euston.
On how people can access routes through the station, a number of considerations will need to be taken into account, not least compliance with fares and security, to ensure that people cannot access the railway or get on trains without tickets.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the clause does not prevent a railway station owner from allowing the public access over, under or through a station. If a station owner wants to provide an officially designated right of way, they can do so by following the existing process under the Highways Act 1980. Throughout the Bill, we have sought not to legislate where processes already exist, except when necessary for the expeditious delivery of phase 1 of HS2.
I hope that my clarification will reassure the hon. Gentleman that the measure applies to a specific way in which a right of way can be established, which I suspect could be used by those who might want to frustrate the delivery of the railway. It therefore makes a lot of sense to exempt that process from the Bill, so I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances, which have gone some way towards satisfying me. If I have interpreted his remarks correctly, he is saying that there is a power elsewhere to grant a right of way and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary, but we have an opportunity here, because the amendment would not detract from that ability. He may say that it would not add to the existing ability, but it would be merely permissive. The amendment would say that new rights of way are possible and—not that we are here to send out messages—make it abundantly clear in the Bill that the significant issue of access and egress for the residents of Camden is within the contemplation of HS2, the Bill’s promoter and everybody else, and that it has been properly thought through.
I am reassured to a large degree, but it is still important to state in the Bill that Euston and other railway stations have the ability to address residents’ concerns about being cut off from each other in the way that I described. Unless the Minister is able to assist me further, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Mr Goodwill
I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that rights of way, bridleways and so on exist in several areas where the railway will be built, and that this is not just about stations. We have done everything in our power to ensure that rights of way are protected. Indeed, there will be expensive infrastructure in many cases to ensure that rights of way are not cut off. We want to go further and use the opportunity presented by the corridor that we are acquiring to connect existing rights of way or create new rights of way, which will be a great facility for local communities. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about Euston, and we may need to address that issue, particularly during the construction phase. We are absolutely determined to work with communities to ensure that businesses are not cut off from their customers, because many people who use the station will use businesses in the vicinity.
However, clause 14 refers to a specific process that can be used to establish a right of way. If we did not have this exclusion, my concern is that those who might wish to frustrate the delivery of the railway through legal processes could come up with the argument that a particular right of way has been used for 20 years, and it would then be our job to disprove that claim. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that we are trying to prevent a legal mechanism. I do not think that there are many rights of way within the Euston area that would not be considered rights of way and thus might require the process to be used. However, it might be used in other areas on the railway, and we might find that it was a legal minefield. That is why we have included the measure in the Bill.
I hope that that has reassured the hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely our intention to do everything possible to ensure that those affected by the construction and delivery of the railway can continue with their normal way of life and have the access that they currently enjoy to property and businesses. The railway is all about accessibility and getting people moving around the country; it is not about preventing people from moving where they wish.
Andy McDonald
I acknowledge what the Minister has said. To clarify, I am not suggesting for one minute that the clause be remitted or excluded; I simply want to add to it. This is not either/or, it is just about providing the permissive ability to create new rights of way. I stand by my remarks and, with your indulgence, Mr Hanson, I will press the matter to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Goodwill
I will briefly reiterate what the clause does. It prevents rights of way from being acquired by prescription, which is a legal term that I have described whereby if it can be established that a right of way has been used for 20 years, it is an established right of way. Under the clause, we are removing that power.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Temporary possession and use of land
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
The clause introduces schedule 16, which gives the Secretary of State a power to take temporary possession of land within the limits of the Bill for the purpose of phase 1 of HS2. The land listed in the table in the schedule may only be taken temporarily, and is not acquired except for rights over the land and subsoil.
Schedule 16 sets out the procedure, including the notice required, the payment of compensation to affected landowners and arrangements for the restoration and return of the land. Where land is not required permanently or not materially changed, or where no new railway works will be constructed, we will normally consider the use of powers of temporary possession if the landlord so wishes and it is economic for the Secretary of State to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 16
Use of roads
Andy McDonald
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 16, page 7, line 19, leave out—
“the end of five years beginning with”.
This amendment would remove the power of the nominated undertaker to use specified roads for the passage of persons or vehicles for five years after Phase One is brought into general use.
This is very much a probing amendment—I do not think we will need to divide on it. It is about an issue raised by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford: the project being on time. As currently drafted, the clause leaves the timescales in some doubt. The Opposition agree that the nominated undertaker should of course have the power to use any roads on specified land for the passage of persons and vehicles for the purposes of phase 1 of High Speed 2, but it is not clear why the nominated undertaker will require that power for five additional years after phase 1 has been brought into general use. Once it is up and running, it is up and running. I do not want to put at residents’ doors the spectre of vehicles trucking up and down with materials.
Sir Simon Burns
As the hon. Gentleman was talking, I was wondering whether extra time might be needed to, for example, continue to clear a site of debris if there had not been the time to do so before phase 1 was up and running.
Andy McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and that may indeed be so, but the clause currently specifies a five-year period beyond the project being completed and effective. Something would have to have gone badly wrong if the clearance of debris and materials took five years.
I keep coming back to the example of Euston. The people in that neighbourhood will necessarily be affected by very considerable building works. We will discuss this in greater detail later in Committee, but some of the works will be really close to people’s homes—within a few metres of retaining walls and retained properties next to HS2—so they will have enough on their plate. I would suggest that the prospect of the project being concluded but there being permission for roads to be used for the specified purpose for a further five-year period will be intolerable.
We are suggesting that the reference to five years be left out, leaving subsection (2) to read: “The power…may not be exercised after the date on which Phase One of High Speed 2 is brought into general use.” The right hon. Gentleman’s point is fair, but the amendment was tabled to highlight the fact that things could literally rumble on for years, long after HS2 is up and running. Will the Minister help us by explaining why it is necessary for the nominated undertaker to be able to exercise the power for such a long time?
Mr Goodwill
I shall clarify exactly what the clause specifies for the use of roads. It allows the nominated undertaker to use any road specified in the table in schedule 8, which is for land in which only rights may be compulsorily acquired, or in the table in paragraph 2 of schedule 11, so as to obtain a right of passage for the purpose of phase 1 of HS2. As we have discussed, the power will end five years after phase 1 of HS2 is brought into general use.
On compensation, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that if access to the roads is required, compensation is payable by the nominated undertaker to the person responsible for managing the road for any loss suffered as a result of its use for phase 1 of HS2. We are not taking a right without understanding our obligations to the owner of the road. Any dispute over entitlement to compensation or the amount of compensation must be determined under part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1961.
The power will last for five years, to enable the nominated undertaker to carry out remedial works if necessary. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that that goes beyond what is referred to in the building trade as basic snagging—the alleviation of minor problems. In any construction project, it is essential that the promoter retains the ability to return to the works following completion to rectify any defects that arise. Subsection (1) allows the access rights used for construction to be used after the completion of the works for that purpose. For a major project such as this, a period of five years is considered an appropriate amount of time for such rights to be retained.
Let me draw attention to some of the issues that might come up. The hon. Gentleman talked about hydrogeological issues, such as problems with drainage or subsidence, and asked whether the infrastructure of the line will need to be revisited if faults emerge. We regard five years as a sensible timescale for problems to emerge, and we therefore consider it necessary. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. There is logic in what he says, and I entirely get the point about the ability to return. One would like to think that the power will rarely be used. He talked about issues arising within five years, but if something untoward takes place further on in the lifetime of HS2—if there is a hydrogeological or electrical problem—the undertaker will have to return to the site.
As I said, this is a probing amendment, and as the Minister has gone a long way towards satisfying me, I am minded to withdraw it. However, given that he has raised the issue, can he describe the nominated undertaker’s power to return to the scene to address construction problems that emerge after the five-year period has elapsed? Presumably they are as relevant as anything that occurs within the five-year period.
Mr Goodwill
The first point I would make is that we have a very good way of accessing the high-speed rail line, which is along the high-speed rail line itself. Much of the engineering work and maintenance that will need to be carried out on the signalling or the catenary—the overhead lines—can be accessed from the railway itself. In the vast majority of cases, we will be able to access the line using the line.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that in 40 or 50 years’ time, we may need to carry out other work. Network Rail already has processes to enable that to happen, including negotiation with landowners and permissive use. This clause is specifically about addressing defects or issues that require more major engineering work than the maintenance that we envisage over the lifetime of the railway. It is sensible to have such powers in hand. We are confident that the railway that will be delivered will be reliable and well constructed. Once again, the braces-and-belt strategy ensures that the power is in place if it is necessary to look at particular aspects of the line and carry out further work to alleviate problems.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances and further explanations. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Cranes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
This clause enables cranes employed by the nominated undertaker to enter the airspace above the land outlined in the table in subsection (7) for the purposes of the works for phase 1 of HS2. Seven days’ notice must be given to the owners and occupiers of the land before the right to oversail a crane is exercised. The right ends seven days after completion of the activities for which the crane has been used. The nominated undertaker must pay compensation to landowners should loss be suffered as a result of the oversailing of cranes. Any dispute, as to a person’s entitlement to compensation, or as to the amount of compensation, must be determined under part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Nothing in these provisions will affect liability compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Enforcement of restrictions on land use
Mr Goodwill
Clause 18 refers to enforcement of restrictions on land use and allows the Secretary of State, when entering into agreements relating to phase 1 of HS2 that impose prohibitions or restrictions on the owners of land, to bind successors in title as if they were the original party. That is despite the fact that the Secretary of State may not at any time of the agreement own land to be benefited by the prohibition or restriction.
The clause ensures that a change in the ownership of land required in some way for HS2 purposes does not extinguish any covenants entered into by agreement between the Secretary of State and the previous landowner. Normally, for such a power to be enforceable, one would require an interest in land to be benefited by the covenant. However, the Secretary of State will have such an interest only after he exercises power under the Bill. The clause ensures that agreements entered into before the power to exercise are enforceable against successors in title.
Will the restriction or provision be a local land charge? Yes. The disapplication of section 2(c) of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 secures that the restriction or provision will be a local land charge.
Andy McDonald
A point occurred to me when the Minister mentioned the succession in title and the power to bind the land subsequently, should the Secretary of State, as the single shareholder of HS2 Ltd, ever part company with ownership. I support the clause but would make another point. That situation could be avoided altogether if the Government committed to keep the railway in state ownership in perpetuity.
Mr Goodwill
I think that might be a subject for debate another day in another place. Having seen the success of privatised railways in the UK, with our franchising model emulated around the world, I think we should keep all our options open—
Mr Goodwill
—to ensure that we can deliver the best railway, which in my view may well include some private sector involvement.
The Chair
The question is that clause 18, in the meantime, stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Compensation for injurious affection
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 19 refers to compensation for injurious affection. I am so pleased that I am not a lawyer having to deal with these terms all the time. To put it simply, it provides that the nominated undertaker, instead of the Secretary of State, will be responsible for paying compensation under section 10(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
Section 10(1) provides for compensation for any decrease in the market value of land caused by the carrying out of the authorised works. It is appropriate for the nominated undertaker to be responsible for paying that type of compensation, since the works have to be carried out by the nominated undertaker, not, hon. Members will be pleased to know, by the Secretary of State.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Deemed planning permission
Andy McDonald
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 20, page 9, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) No works that are not scheduled works under this Act may be undertaken until the Secretary of State has published guidelines on how developments will be assessed as likely to have significant effects on the environment for the purposes of subsection (2)(a).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidelines on how developments will be assessed as to whether they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification of injurious affection. I thought that might be something to do with over-passionate kissing. [Interruption.] What people get up to in Whitby when Dracula is around, I leave to them.
I speak to clause 20 and the deemed planning permission provisions. Our amendment seeks to make a significant change. At subsection (2)(c) we add:
“No works that are not scheduled works under this Act may be undertaken until the Secretary of State has published guidelines on how developments will be assessed as likely to have significant effects on the environment for the purposes of subsection (2)(a)”.
That would simply provide that where development authorised by this Act consists of carrying out works not scheduled under the Act, subsection (1) does not apply—in other words, deemed planning permission—if the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment with factors such as nature, size and location. That is what we are trying to gain clarity about and I hope that my amendment will assist. As it currently stands, it is the decision of the Secretary of State to adjudge whether a future development that is not scheduled has a significant environmental impact. However, the criteria that the Secretary of State would use are not delineated or specified in the Bill. In the interests of transparency and specificity, we are seeking to secure guidelines from the Secretary of State about how such a decision will be made.
This is an important amendment—as they all are—because without that qualification the Secretary of State is able to deem a development not to have a significant effect on the environment, without an effective means of challenge. There could be circumstances where unscheduled works become necessary and the Secretary of State makes a decision that the said works do not have a significant effect on the environment. It is conceivable that there could be significant and substantial opposition to that development within a locality, so we believe that it is an important and necessary step for the Secretary of State to settle guidelines by which such decisions can be judged. The Select Committee process has gone through the environmental concerns for the matters that we know about, but if issues arise at a later date, somebody will undoubtedly come along and complain that the Secretary of State has used the powers as currently described to say that the development that people are complaining about does not have a significant effect on the environment in its size, nature or location. The general public would be more satisfied if they could refer to criteria detailed within guidelines to describe how the Secretary of State arrives at a decision. At the moment, this effectively gives the Minister carte blanche to deem development as not falling within that category.
In the absence of such guidelines, I ask the Minister to describe how these concerns would be addressed. If he concludes with me that there is no satisfactory method of adjudging whether the decision is a sound one, we will decide to press this amendment to a vote. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and explanation.
Mr Goodwill
I am happy to take criticism over various aspects of the way that HS2 has been delivered, but not in terms of the way we have addressed the environmental concerns that have been raised up and down the country. We made the point that there will be no net environmental loss in delivering the project, and indeed we have gone far beyond anything required in statute for a major infrastructure project. I spent the best part of an afternoon talking about tree species and how we can take this opportunity to work with those seeking to produce elm trees resistant to Dutch elm disease and ash trees resistant to ash dieback and re-establish those species.
I understand the importance attached to environmental considerations. Whether we are talking about pipistrelle bats, Bechstein’s bats or whatever else, we are aware of our obligations and we have been held to account by many of the environmental groups involved in that area.
Andy McDonald
I seem to have inadvertently struck a raw nerve. By no means am I being critical of the environmental assessments to date; I am concerned about the powers that the Secretary of State has for the future. I will not criticise at all the excellent things done in the course of the Select Committee and by the Department, but there needs to be the power and ability to hold someone to account if a decision is made that someone objects to. It is about the future, not what has happened to date.
Mr Goodwill
I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, so, having set the context, I will proceed to put his mind at rest on the clause. I underline that I am committed to delivering environmental enhancements. Unfortunately, when one delivers such a project, one has to go through land that has some sensitive environmental features, so it is important to mitigate that by putting measures in place on the land that can be acquired for the project and they will be provided.
To put the clause in context, it refers to deemed planning permission, which it provides under part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for carrying out the works authorised by the Bill. Deemed planning permission is granted only for ancillary work in the Bill when the impact of such work is assessed in the environmental statement or when the development is an exempt development in the meaning of the environmental impact assessment regulations. Exempt development includes developments such as defence installations, which are highly unlikely to apply to phase 1, but we have put that measure in for legal completeness. Any work outside those parameters will require separate planning permission.
Subsection (3) introduces schedule 17, which sets out the conditions of deemed planning permission. That includes the requirement for approval from relevant local authorities on specific aspects of design and construction to ensure that local impacts, such as the movement of lorries to and from construction sites, are mitigated appropriately.
I hope to reassure the hon. Gentlemen that the bases he draws my attention to are already covered. The Bill gives permission for ancillary works for which the effects have been reported in the environmental statement and any works that give rise to environmental effects significantly different from those reported in that statement will require separate planning permission. The means of assessing whether an effect is significant are set out in the scope and methodology report that informs the environmental assessment of the Bill. That is not a matter for the Secretary of State’s whim but one that has been addressed and the process is set out in the report, which was subject to consultation with stakeholders during its preparation.
The methodology in the report is based on industry best practice. The Select Committee process has demonstrated that it is sound and it will be the correct methodology for assessing the environmental effects of works through the design and construction of HS2. I hope that that clarification reassures the hon. Gentleman that he can withdraw his amendment.
Andy McDonald
It seems to me that the methodology that the Minister refers to could be engrossed into guidelines. I fail to see why a public-facing document cannot set that out. If that is how it currently works, I accept entirely what he says. It is not just a question of nomenclature; it is important that people have a reference that they can turn to and say, “These are the criteria that will be observed.”
Mr Goodwill
I will endeavour to help the hon. Gentleman. The methodology is public, and the way in which the methodology is being applied would be subject to the scrutiny of those who wish to test that the methodology is being applied properly. The project is not being delivered while the environmental non-governmental organisations are looking the other way. This has had intense scrutiny, not only from those who have the interest of the environment at heart, but from those who I suspect are using some of the environmental legislation to try to frustrate the delivery of the Bill. We have people looking for reasons why they could prevent this going forward. That is why we have had to make sure that in terms of the environment every single t has been crossed and every single i dotted.
As I mentioned before, we have been through the hybrid Select Committee stage, where those who may have considered the process to be an inadequate way to deal with the changes could have raised that, but the Select Committee was content that the process would be robust. I hope I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that the methodology, which is public, will be used to determine where the clause would be applied. As I have already said, if anything reported was beyond the environmental effects reported in the environmental statement, that would require a separate planning permission. Of course, planning permissions would be subject to all the environmental and other consultations and challenges that could be made.
I think we are in a good place on this. I do not have any fears that we would be risking some of our environmental delivery on this project by having the clause in the Bill.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister. He has gone all the way to satisfying my concerns. In a nutshell, the methodology contains the guidelines that I have been looking for, so I intend to withdraw the amendment. I simply ask that we be provided with a copy of the document. It speaks to my ignorance rather than my trying to dig deeper into this. I was not aware of the existence of that process and I would be better informed if I had sight of it. It would be churlish of me not to accept that the Minister has satisfied the important intent of the amendment in every respect. Contrary to my initial intentions, I will—
Mr Goodwill
Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, I can assure him that I will get the relevant paperwork to him before we reconvene this afternoon, or if not, before our sitting on Thursday.
Andy McDonald
On that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Second sitting)
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 21, page 9, line 30, after “by order” insert—
“by up to a further 5 years”.
Under clause 21 planning permission for a scheduled work to be undertaken is valid for 10 years, unless the Secretary of State extends the period under subsection (2) by a statutory instrument. This amendment would limit each extension to a further five years.
Subsection (2), as drafted, reads:
“The Secretary of State may, in relation to any such development, by order extend the period within which the development must be begun”.
My amendment would limit each such extension to a further five years at the conclusion of the initial 10 years from the date of the passing of the Act. Ten years after the Bill has been enacted as an initial time limit on the commencement of works is extremely generous, given that the scheduling of works means that the service is expected to start in 2026.
It should be noted that that time limit is for the commencement of works, not their completion. The clause is not saying that the deemed planning permission lasts for 10 years, during which time the works must be completed; it is simply saying that they must be started. If we assume that the Bill is passed in 2016 and that works are completed as scheduled, works starting in each of the years from the end of 2016 right up until the end of 2026 would, by virtue of subsection (1), be deemed to have planning permission.
It is hard to imagine any works within the current contemplation of the promoter that will not have been commenced by 2025 at the very latest—and that is a stretch, to imagine that nothing would start before 2025. I would have thought that all the scheduled works will have been long since started by such a late date. If I have got that wrong, perhaps the Minister will identify any works with such a late start date in the 10-year construction period that need the protection of an unlimited extension period.
The words in the Bill are “must be begun”, so their commencement is the determining factor, not their completion. For any works started by 2023, 2024 or 2025—so long as they have been started—the deemed planning permission will be effective, notwithstanding the fact that they will not be completed by 2026. Indeed, for those examples the permission will be effective until 2033, 2034 or 2035, a maximum of nine years beyond the date on which it is expected that the service will be not only ready for use, but up and running.
There is, in effect, plenty of run-on time. For example, if the project slipped very badly for reasons that we cannot currently envisage—be that the disastrous management of the economy over the intervening years by the current or subsequent Governments, or some world economic downturn the consequences of which delayed matters so badly that the key component works had not been commenced by 2026—surely that would put the entire project at risk. It would be such a different scenario that the people of the United Kingdom and its Parliament would be entitled, and indeed duty-bound, to conduct a root-and-branch review. If we are able to stick to timescales and costs within proper and reasonable parameters, it would be entirely proper for the matter to come back before Parliament for further consideration. To grant open-ended permissions, or have the ability to grant them, would go way beyond what was originally contemplated and would treat the public with disdain. If we cannot commence the necessary works by the time our timetable envisages the system being up and running, something will have gone badly wrong.
The promoter and the nominated undertaker will know now what works are necessary to build HS2. Clearly, elements of the scheduled works are properly sequenced, but the scheduled works themselves will have commenced, or certainly should have done, long before the end of the 10-year permitted construction period. Of course, the final fixings and other ancillary works will necessarily start later than the date on which the initial scheduled works commence. Those final fixings and ancillary works surely do not need deemed planning permissions in their own right; they are simply part of the scheduled works themselves.
There may be run-ons that we cannot predict. In his remarks on clause 16, the Minister alluded to the need to use roads to facilitate contractors revisiting the site of works in the event of necessary amendment, maintenance or repair. He has used the example of ongoing hydrogeological works and, presumably, hydrogeological surveying. To say that deemed planning permission—I stress that phrase—can effectively be extended indefinitely is to stretch the point beyond its natural elasticity. There has to be an end point. As it is, works can be commenced at the eleventh hour, as against the 10-year post-assent construction period, and be deemed to have planning permission. The Secretary of State can simply extend that initial 10-year period without limit. However, that would only serve to create great uncertainty, if landowners within the scope of the works, or landowners and occupiers not within the scope of the works but affected by them, were not sure whether any such proposed works were taking place. Given the flexibility within the Act with regard to phase 1 works, the provision has the potential to create considerable anxiety, which my amendment attempts to address.
However, we can understand the argument and the need for the Secretary of State to have the power to extend the period within which works should be commenced and therefore have the benefit of deemed planning permission. All we are saying is that there should be a reasonable cap on the extent to which such an extension can be granted. Our amendment proposes a limit to each extension to a further five-year period. We think that is eminently reasonable. As currently configured, it would cover developments from the anticipated start date of 2016, initially to 2026 and by extension to 2031, a total period of 15 years from the date of Royal Assent.
The process through which that would be achieved, namely the negative procedure, is also agreeable. We would know the issue from the outset and the ability to reject the statutory instrument by resolution is more than sufficient in such circumstances, and it would not be necessary to deploy the affirmative procedure and require the measure to be the subject of debate. As it is, we are concerned that there is no specified time limit for each extension and believe that limiting each extension to a further five-year period would be sufficient. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I am grateful to the noble Lord, but he is trespassing on a Commons Committee.
Andy McDonald
It is currently estimated that HS2 will be completed and ready for general use by 2026, which is 10 years after the Bill receives Royal Assent, and a five-year extension would take us to 2031, which is surely a more than sufficient amount of time for a planning permission extension. As long as the Government do not anticipate significant delays to the construction of HS2, planning permission being valid for 10 years after Royal Assent, with a potential additional five-year period, would be more than ample and would allay any concerns that the Secretary of State was acquiring an unnecessary power.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Let me say at the outset that we would never treat the people of this country with disdain. Indeed, the way that this project has been presented and how we have engaged with people, particularly on the line of route, has shown the utmost respect for people’s rights, particularly their property rights.
Clause 21 sets out as a condition of deemed planning permission a time limit of 10 years after Royal Assent within which the authorised works must have commenced. The clause also allows the Secretary of State by order to extend the period by which any work must be commenced. Such an order is to be made by a statutory instrument that is subject to a negative resolution procedure.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough asked, “Why 10 years?” It is important to stress that the maximum period of 10 years would be deployed only in unusual circumstances. We are talking about unforeseen events, and I certainly cannot foresee an event that would delay the project for that long, but the length of any extension would be up to the Secretary of State’s judgment. It is not 10 years or nothing; it is a case of what sort of extension could be chosen. It is a reasonable maximum period of time and it is normal for major infrastructure projects such as phase 1 of HS2.
The current build programme is 10 years, meaning that it is possible, with our current plan, that some of the works included in the Bill will not commence until up to 10 years from Royal Assent. Indeed, specific elements of the project may not be commenced until the very end. One example is the provision of the electricity supply for the trains, which would be one of the last elements to put in place. Another such element is the environmental reinstatement, which would be done right at the end of the project. Indeed, much of the excavated material may take some time to be stabilised before that environmental work can be carried out.
Our promise to provide better rights of way, including cycle paths, as part of HS2 would also form one of the final elements, perhaps meaning that planning consent would be actioned only at the very end of the project. Even a small slippage in time could result in the 10-year period being eaten up. Indeed, some of the work could be carried out once the line is operational. For example, I would expect the environmental work to be going on for quite some time after the line is opened.
The proposal provides flexibility for the programme. While our current plan is for construction to be completed within 10 years, unforeseen events could disrupt the programme. We need to be able to manage such events while still constructing the railway. We will know how much more time we require only at the point of seeking an extension, and any such order will be subject to parliamentary procedure.
Andy McDonald
The Minister talks about things that we cannot anticipate. We know that the unknowns are unknown, so we have to live with that on a daily basis. He describes the provision as presenting a reasonable maximum time; I suggest that it does no such thing. A reasonable maximum means an end point expressed in years, months, hours or minutes. If the provision simply says “extend the period,” there is no delineation of what the maximum may be. I kindly say to him that it cannot be both. In the Minister’s defence, I take the point about the potential run-ons.
The environmental reinstatement issue is perhaps the most valid, but I cannot see that powering electricity to works that have already commenced is a separate development in its own right. The work has already started. It is not a new undertaking or brand-new construction work, so it is something that continues. He also made the acceptable point that some environmental reinstatements may continue when the operation is up and running.
I am also slightly concerned about the Bill containing a power that the Minister says will not be used, which is difficult to reconcile.
Mr Goodwill
I was just speculating on what might be the outcome if this clause were not accepted and if the hon. Gentleman’s amendment were to be included in the Bill. We could end up in the situation that we often see with developers, which will build a property up to floor level to action the planning consent and then leave it for a while before the work continues. I would not want to engineer a situation in which aspects of HS2 are commenced merely to action the planning consent, with the land not being developed further until such stage in the project as it becomes necessary. That could mean that those whose land is being given up might find that they have their land for less time before it is taken away from them. That is dangerous if we are not careful. Without this power, we could end up with people having their land taken from them so that work can commence to action the planning consent but then be put on ice until such a time as that work can be completed.
Andy McDonald
The Minister almost got me over the line, and then he introduced that new concept. I was about to sit down.
Andy McDonald
But helping me with that sows seeds of even greater doubt that we might reach the end of a period just to anchor the land and secure the plot. If we get into a situation where that sort of behaviour is taking place with HS2, which is so heavily regulated, it will be a sorry state of affairs. I have sufficient faith in the promoter of the clause to be sure that that sort of activity will not happen, but I can see that he is itching to speak.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that that would be a sorry state of affairs. The clause means that no one would even be able to contemplate doing so, because an extension could be sought if necessary.
Andy McDonald
I am continuing to dig. I will call a draw. Respectfully, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Power to disapply deemed planning permission
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 22 gives the power to disapply deemed planning permission. It allows the Secretary of State, by order, to disapply the planning permission granted by the Bill for maintenance or alteration of phase 1 works that are carried out after a specified date. The clause is intended to relate to works post-construction where it would be disproportionate for the HS2 infrastructure operator to have such broad planning permission.
Once the Secretary of State has disapplied the deemed planning permission, post-construction maintenance and general improvement works on phase 1 of HS2 will be authorised using the normal provisions outlined in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. It is a standard approach to railway operators, including Network Rail. There is no parliamentary procedure for the order. It is not subject to parliamentary procedure because we are removing a broad power and reverting to the normal planning regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Parking at Birmingham Interchange: limit on deemed planning permission
Andy McDonald
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 23, page 11, line 29, at end, insert “where the meaning of the expression ‘short-term’ shall not extend to stays of more than 12 hours”.
Clause 23 allows for the creation of up to 7,500 parking spaces but this limit on spaces does not apply to short-term parking. This amendment defines short-term parking as being parking for a period of 12 hours or less.
We move from planning permissions and extensions thereof to the vexed question of parking in Birmingham, which I am sure everybody has been looking forward to. I think—dare I say it—that we are now back on track with our amendment. When it was initially presented, it may have been slotted in as part of the clause in error. I think I am right in saying that we are now at clause 23, page 11—
The Chair
Order. May I assist the hon. Gentleman? I have been notified by the Clerks that there is a small error on the Order Paper. Amendment 15 should relate to clause 23, page 11, line 28. Other than that, I understand that it is correct. Is the hon. Gentleman happy to speak to that?
Andy McDonald
I am indeed. I am grateful for the clarification, Mr Hanson.
The amendment expresses our concerns about the volume of motor traffic that would be generated by the interchange station. We have been informed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, whose petition on the issue and representations to the Select Committee we note. The CPRE’s initial concern was that the Birmingham interchange would be situated in the green belt. In our amendment, we are pursuing not that concern but some other legitimate concerns raised about the consequences of the station’s location.
This amendment attempts to address the volume of traffic that will be generated by the interchange station, the associated proposals to expand the capacity of the surrounding road, and the pressure that would create for further expansion of the road network in the surrounding area.
One of the overarching purposes of building a railway, or indeed of investing in any form of public transport, is to reduce the number of journeys taken by car. Efforts should be made to ensure that there is not an inadvertent increase in net journeys by private car. The fear is that the inadvertent consequence of the specifications contained within clause 23—or, rather, the lack of them—may produce an undesirable outcome. It is submitted that the management of car parking spaces is one of the most efficient means to influence travel choices. There is a significant worry that the plans as set out in the Bill might encourage extra journeys by car. Indeed, one of the representations from the Campaign to Protect Rural England initially asked for the limit to be placed at 2,000 car parking spaces—yet the clause gives the much higher figure of 7,500—and also suggested that the limit placed on spaces for coaches should be increased to 25, and that car parking spaces should be multi-storey. That gives a flavour of some of the concerns of the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
As I say, currently the Bill provides for a limit to be placed on the provision of car parking places of 7,500 and, somewhat curiously, five parking spaces for coaches. I do not know whether the Minister can shed some light on that. That seems to be a very strange ratio, but undoubtedly there will be a logical explanation for it.
Be that as it may, the exclusions in subsection (4)(c)(i) of the clause exempt,
“the provision of short-term parking for cars”,
and, understandably, also the short-term parking for taxis and coaches. Subsection (4)(c)(ii) specifies an exemption for “parking on working sites”.
The clause puts a limit on car parking spaces of 7,500, but short-term car parking spaces are excluded from that. Exclusion from the provision may well serve to increase yet further the number of vehicles parked at Birmingham Interchange. As there is no definition of the term “short term” for the car parking spaces in Birmingham, people who currently plan to travel by train to Birmingham and then change trains might alternatively decide to drive to the station by car and park there, rather than using other forms of public transport. The whole issue is how to get some modal shift in how people go about their business.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I wondered whether there is not a problem when there is no legal definition of “short term”. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment seeks to define it as up to 12 hours, yet at Heathrow airport short-term parking is up to three or four days, for example. It seems rather vague terminology to use on the face of a Bill.
Andy McDonald
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is why we seek to specify the number of hours that constitute short-term car parking. It varies from one environment to another. In very busy city centres it might be 20 or 30 minutes, or it might be an hour. There is no universal statutory definition of what short-term car parking is. The amendment tries to address that for the purposes of this particular location.
Sir Simon Burns
I can certainly understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. I only question whether the most appropriate place to try to do that is on the face of a piece of primary legislation.
Andy McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The purpose of this amendment is to probe and tease out from the Minister exactly how this issue might be addressed. I declare now that I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. However, I hope that it will elicit further information from the Minister during this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is valid and indeed there is no such definition, as we currently understand it.
What we are saying, in simple terms, is that in an attempt to go some way towards reducing the need for people to make unnecessary car journeys, and to encourage travellers to use other forms of transport, our amendment seeks to limit the time-limit maximum to 12 hours. That period of 12 hours would be more than sufficient for a traveller to conduct business in another location in the course of a working day, but would hopefully discourage them if their return to Birmingham took more than 12 hours. We address that at line 28, so that the limit of 7,500 car parking spaces that would be set out in clause 23(1) is not exceeded by the provision of short-term car parking for the duration of a stay that is less than 12 hours.
Hopefully, that will go some way towards curtailing the excessive car use that presumably the Government—who are promoting the Bill—wish to avoid. As I said, this is a probing amendment, but it would be appreciated if the Minister could reassure the Committee in as much detail as possible that thorough and comprehensive consideration has been given to how we might minimise the risk of unintended consequences. I hope that the Minister will give some delineation or some guidance as to what is meant by “short-term parking”.
Mr Goodwill
I am more than happy to give a little bit more background about our thinking, which the hon. Gentleman is trying to tease out.
My short answer to his questions would be that these issues need to be addressed but probably not for another nine or 10 years, when the project will be on the ground and delivered. As the hon. Gentleman knows, clause 23 specifically relates to parking at Birmingham Interchange and sets limits on deemed planning permission. It limits the application of deemed planning permission under clause 20(1), regarding medium and long-term car parking at Birmingham Interchange, to no more than 7,500 cars and five coaches.
The figures for coaches and cars were based on our assessment of likely parking demand and a traffic assessment in the area, and to allow for expansion or excess demand the figure includes an allowance for flexibility. It was felt that parking is different in nature from operational railway structures, and therefore different controls were needed. Incidentally, other stations along the line of route do not have car parking on this scale and therefore have not been addressed in this way.
Local planning authorities will have controls over the details of the car park. Indeed, subsection (3) states:
“The deemed planning permission under section 20(1) for relevant development is…outline planning permission”
for the purposes, as set out in subsection (4)(b), of:
“the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015”.
Therefore, as subsection (3) sets out, subsequent approval would be required from the local planning authority in relation to
“access, appearance, landscaping and layout”
of the car parking.
I turn specifically to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. The clause has been drafted to provide sufficient medium and long-term parking at the station, and to ensure that this parking, which differs from operational railway development, is subject to appropriate planning control. The numbers set out are based on a robust forecast of demand for parking at the station.
The purpose of subsection (4)(c)(i) is to exclude short-term parking from this control as it is part of the operation of the railway. For example, it is used by people being dropped off or people collecting passengers at the station, or parking to do so. This could have been more accurately described as “drop-off” rather than “parking”. Indeed, many stations around the country already have separate provision for short-term parking for people to collect passengers or to drop them off.
We do not think it would be appropriate to amend clause 23, as the commercial strategy for parking at the station has yet to be developed, and the proposed amendment would have the effect of fixing parking arrangements too soon. Also, by defining short-term as being up to 12 hours, the amendment risks removing day-long parking from the control in clause 23, which we do not believe is the intent.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned someone who might want to do business all day in London. It may be that, if he gets a very early train, 12 hours would not be sufficient to complete the return journey, despite the fact that HS2 will be such a fast train. The person visiting Birmingham or London might well have time to have dinner and still get back at their expected time.
As parking strategy is considered by the operator of the car park, I suspect it will be to keep the car park full. The pricing and timings of the parking would be designed to maximise the income and ensure that the provision is taken up to the maximum extent.
The hon. Gentleman talked about whether we might be in danger of creating extra car journeys. If parking were restricted, either by duration or price, many passengers would choose to travel to stations by taxi and, therefore, there would be four car journeys associated with the day trip he referred to, rather than two if the passenger left their car at the station.
Looking at the environmental impact, in 10 or more years from now, we will see much more sustainable vehicles in the national fleet. Even the vehicles operating at the moment, if they get their diesel engines fixed, will work a lot better than at the moment. We have already seen a large take-up in the number of electric cars on our roads. I suspect that will continue to increase.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there were only five coach spaces. From my experience at stations such as York, which I use regularly, one does not see coaches picking up large numbers of people. People going on group holidays might do that but, by and large, one does not see large groups of people travelling by train at the moment. Many people will come to the station by bus and other forms of sustainable transport. If a coach were picking up passengers, the chances are it would be there for only a short time to arrive at the car park and pick up that group.
The mix between coach and car will need to be addressed at the time. That could well be flexible, as it is only a case of painting a few additional white lines on the car park.
The hon. Gentleman said that this was a probing amendment. He raises perfectly valid points but we do not need to rush our fences. They will need to be considered at the point that the car park is put into use by passengers. That may well be before the operation of the railway. If the car park is not used for construction, it may be possible to get income from the car park before the railway is available.
I hope my explanation reassures the hon. Gentleman, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Andy McDonald
I hope the workers will not be charged for working on the site. That would be over the top. I hope they will be able to turn up for work and not think about paying car-parking fees.
Andy McDonald
Health workers do but, hopefully, it will not happen on this occasion. Perhaps we can have better practice for HS2. There will undoubtedly be a very large area where they can park their vehicles, so perhaps the Minister could reflect on that.
I understand what the Minister is saying and his clarification is helpful. If I were being unkind I would say that his telling us that we should not insert this provision about short-term car parking in the Bill now prompts the question why the Bill specifies 7,500 car spaces and five spaces for coaches, but I think he has addressed that. I am also grateful that he has made it clear that he contemplates the five parking spaces for coaches for dropping off passengers and not for long-term parking.
As he said, all of that will come out in the wash, but the basic principle of the amendment is to encourage people to use trains and not make unnecessary journeys. He is also right about the 12 hours. People may be able to travel to London, do their business and get back for dinner before they have even set off, it will be so quick; so we look forward to those developments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, having been satisfied with the Minister’s clarification.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Development consent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
We now move to clause 24. It is more a clarification of the situation with this railway than a change to it. Clause 24 makes it clear that development consent under the Planning Act 2008 is not required for the authorised works. That Act has specific powers related to the construction of national infrastructure projects such as HS2. As the Bill will provide the powers required to build and maintain phase 1 of HS2, a development consent order is unnecessary. Indeed, given the importance of the HS2 scheme and the requirement to alter existing legislation to allow the expeditious construction, maintenance and operation of the railway, it was decided that for this scheme Parliament should be the authorising body. A hybrid Bill was therefore the most appropriate mechanism.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Listed buildings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
I will attempt to be as brief as I was on the previous clause. This is a very important clause relating to listed buildings, a number of which unfortunately are affected by the construction of HS2. Clause 25 introduces schedule 18, which disapplies or modifies controls for listed buildings to allow the construction of phase 1 of HS2 and enable the monitoring and protection of listed buildings. The buildings affected are listed in tables 1 and 2 in schedule 18, and the disapplications or modifications apply only to those buildings. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008.
The promoter is in the process of agreeing heritage agreements with the relevant local authorities and Historic England. These agreements will put in place an approvals process that will ensure that the works subject to clause 25 and schedule 18 are carried out in an appropriate manner. I stress that we wish to minimise the impact on listed buildings wherever possible; this clause underlines that wish.
Andy McDonald
I want to ask for clarification from the Minister. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of our listed buildings, which are listed because they are treasured and regarded as worthy in cultural or architectural terms. Will the Minister say a little more about how these heritage agreements might preserve the buildings in terms of their make-up? For example, we talked about the ambitions to restore the Euston arch. I think I am right in saying that bits of the Euston arch are scattered to the four winds. Some are in a beck somewhere, some are in a farmyard and others cannot be found. We are going to go through a thoughtful process of how to deal with these listed buildings. What sort of process is in place to try where possible to preserve the elements of a building—as we do with monuments—so that, for example, it can be re-sited somewhere else or otherwise utilised?
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those reasonable points. In cases where buildings are being destroyed and demolished in order to build the railway, there are no plans to reconstruct them elsewhere. However, other buildings will be affected by vibration or noise and the aesthetic value of others might be reduced by the proximity of the railway. We are conscious of those problems, and that is why the listed building controls that we are disapplying are done in a sympathetic way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that all works will have to be done in accordance with the environmental minimum requirements. The normal requirement to obtain listed building consent will apply to any of these changes. Although we are conscious that these buildings will be affected in a way that, in an ideal world, we would not wish, we are doing everything that can be done to limit the impact and deal with listed buildings sympathetically.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Clause 26
Ancient monuments
Mr Goodwill
In many ways, this clause on ancient monuments is similar to clause 25, which was on listed buildings. Clause 26 introduces schedule 19, which disapplies or modifies controls on ancient monuments to allow the construction of phase 1 of HS2. The schedule allows a person authorised by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England to enter on to land on which there is a scheduled monument to observe or advise on the carrying out of works to ensure the protection of such monuments. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008.
The promoter is in the process of agreeing a heritage agreement with Historic England in relation to ancient monuments such as Grim’s ditch in the Chilterns. The agreement will establish an approvals process to ensure that works subject to clause 26 and schedule 19 are carried out appropriately. If the Bill is passed, phase 1 of HS2 will have been approved by Parliament, and parliamentary approval will give all the consent necessary to construct the railway. Those are the powers that are being used in this way. Once again, all works must be done in accordance with the environmental minimum requirements.
Andy McDonald
In the same vein, the Minister makes a valid point. It is a bit of an eggs and omelettes situation so far as listed buildings are concerned, but perhaps there is greater scope to preserve ancient monuments or take them to another site. Is he able, now or at a later date, to give detail about how many monuments will be treated in that way? I am sure that it will be considered, given the involvement of Historic England, but has it been identified as a possibility in any particular instance? Could it be rolled out elsewhere?
Mr Goodwill
We certainly will be advised by Historic England on how we can address particular instances. Indeed, a heritage agreement will establish a process for approving how works will be carried out, which will include recording the features, protecting those features where they remain in situ but could be affected by the construction, and possibly reusing features. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Euston arch, which is no longer an ancient monument or a listed building, as it was destroyed, but he is right that a number of important elements of that structure could be reused. The Secretary of State is keen to reconstruct the Euston arch as a feature of the railway. I wondered whether we could have some sort of hologram instead, but he much prefers bricks, stone and mortar than something a bit more high-tech.
I hope that the Committee will be assured that we are conscious of the need, in the same way as with historic and listed buildings, to protect ancient monuments to ensure that the impact on our heritage, on our countryside and on features that we wish to preserve is at the forefront of our minds. We are working with organisations that are best placed to advise us on how best to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 19 agreed to.
Clause 27
Burial grounds
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
The clause relates to burial grounds, a subject close to my heart, given that I operate a green burial site on my farm and have around 400 people as permanent guests. The clause provides for the disapplication of laws concerning burial grounds and human remains. It also includes schedule 20, which outlines the process that the nominated undertaker—an unfortunate word to use in this regard—must follow in relation to the removal and re-interment or cremation of human remains, and the removal and replacement of monuments to the deceased. I understand that this is a sensitive subject, and that it is not just the railway that presents such issues; many construction projects around the country have unfortunately done so.
The clause disapplies ecclesiastical law for the purpose of construction in phase 1 of HS2. It also disapplies the law relating to burial grounds if the remains and any monument to the deceased have been dealt with in accordance with schedule 20. Similar provisions are included in the Crossrail Act 2008.
Three known burial grounds are affected by phase 1 service works: St James’s Gardens in Euston, St Mary’s Old Church in Stoke Mandeville and Park Street Gardens in Birmingham. In addition to those, four other burial grounds lie above the tunnelled route of HS2 and/or partially within the limits of land to be acquired or used. They are: North Acton cemetery in the London borough of Ealing; the Kensal Green Cemetery of All Souls in the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea; St Mary’s Roman Catholic cemetery in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; and St Giles’s church in Chalfont St Giles in Chiltern district.
Any human remains affected by phase 1 of HS2 will be treated with dignity, respect and care. Works impacting human remains and associated monuments are an emotive and complex matter, and HS2 Ltd and the promoter recognise their duty to address the concerns of individuals and communities. Two undertakings have been concluded in respect of the treatment of and approach to human remains and monuments, in consultation between the nominated undertaker, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and the stakeholder, the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England.
The nominated undertaker is required to develop a burial grounds, human remains and monuments procedure to implement the legal requirements of schedule 20. Where remains are less than 100 years old, schedule 20 requires a notice to be published in the local newspaper and displayed at the burial ground. Relatives have the right to remove and re-inter or cremate the remains themselves at the promoter’s expense.
If Members were part of the all-party parliamentary group on funerals and bereavement, as I am, they would know that this is quite a contentious issue already where municipal cemeteries are reusing land after 80 or 100 years. What is happening with HS2 is not happening in isolation; it is an issue around the country where the operators of burial grounds are reusing land, and it can sometimes be emotive for people whose relatives or friends are buried there.
For the purpose of clause 27 and schedule 20, a monument includes a tombstone or other memorial to the deceased, which includes a monument to one or more deceased persons. If the Bill is passed, phase 1 of HS2 will have been approved by Parliament, and parliamentary approval will therefore give the consent necessary to construct the railway. The limits to the powers in the clause and detailed controls in schedule 20 will apply. I commend clause 27 to the Committee.
Andy McDonald
A question occurred to me as the Minister was speaking about monuments. Is it within the contemplation of the promoter that people within a certain period going back will be able to have bodies re-interred and monuments moved? I am just thinking of the historical value of some of the monuments in our cemeteries. Has any thought been given to re-siting those monuments in another place? Those of us who have travelled to Poland with the Holocaust Educational Trust will have seen monuments that were retrieved from where they had been scattered and replaced where they could be given proper respect. Is it within the contemplation of the promoter to undertake that sort of exercise with these burial grounds?
Mr Goodwill
This is not a unique situation. As I already mentioned, numerous burial grounds are, unfortunately, being reused for other purposes—sometimes for re-burials. It is right that consideration should be given to how those memorials could be placed in a way that continues to provide a monument to that person. The rules in place for disinterment and reburial or cremation of those remains have been used on a number of occasions and will apply here. It is vital that we proceed in a sympathetic way and do everything possible to inform relatives and friends of people interred in this way. If necessary, I will take a personal interest in ensuring that relatives’ and friends’ views are respected and, where possible, responded to.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 20 agreed to.
Clause 28
Consecrated land
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
On a similar theme, clause 28 applies to consecrated land. It provides that works authorised by the Bill may be carried out on consecrated land without being affected by restrictions and obligations imposed by ecclesiastical or other laws.
I have already mentioned that we have been in close conversation with the Church of England to ensure that it is aware of our intentions. Burial grounds are dealt with separately under schedule 20, which sets out how human remains are to be dealt with. Environmental minimum requirements control how the works are to be carried out. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008.
If the Bill is passed, phase 1 of HS2 will be approved by Parliament, and that will give the necessary consent to construct the railway. As I have said before, protection of consecrated land is provided in schedule 20 and the environmental minimum requirements, as always, will apply.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Commons and open spaces
Andy McDonald
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 29, page 12, line 28, at end insert—
“(d) The ownership of any public space which was previously owned by a public body and which is acquired by the nominated undertaker or the Secretary of State for Phase One purposes, and is subsequently returned to use as public space, must be transferred to a public body when that public space is no longer required for Phase One purposes.
“(e) For the purposes of subsection (d), a public body is a local authority, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London or any Metropolitan County Transport Authority.”
This amendment requires the ownership of any public space which was previously owned by a public body and which is acquired by the nominated undertaker or Secretary of State for Phase One purposes, and which is then subsequently returned to use as a public space, to be transferred to a public body when the space is no longer required.
Clause 29 would give the Secretary of State significant and wide-ranging powers over commons and open spaces. The amendment is another attempt from me to put some shackles on the Secretary of State to prevent him or her from overreaching those powers. The clause says:
“No enactment regulating the use of commons, town or village greens, open spaces or allotments, and no enactment specially regulating any land of any of those kinds, prevents or restricts”
the Secretary of State doing all manner of things. That includes
“(a) the doing of anything for Phase One purposes on land held by the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker for those purposes,
(b) the exercise of any right of entry…or
(c) the doing of anything in exercise of any other power under this Act.”
So the Secretary of State has a pretty free hand to do as he or she pleases. In any other circumstances, there would be chaotic, loud and persistent protests at the infringement of such treasured spaces of public land.
We all recognise that the needs and demands of HS2 change all that. Therefore, the Secretary of State must have these powers. We do not object to that, but we would like to see those powers qualified. We are talking about a modest qualification regarding the return of land to a public authority, keeping that land out of the clutches of any potential private entity. We believe that would be entirely appropriate and welcomed by many people.
Mr Goodwill
May I say at the outset that I intend to satisfy the hon. Gentleman completely? We are both in exact accord on this particular aspect. As he mentioned, Clause 29 refers to commons and open spaces and disapplies existing enactments that regulate the use of commons, town or village greens, open spaces or allotments. HS2 has made a number of commitments with regard to the effects of phase 1 of HS2 on open space, which are binding through the environmental minimum requirements. Where there are effects, we have sought to reach agreement with local authorities on how the effects will be mitigated. For example, commitments have been made to the London Borough of Ealing regarding the provision of new open space to mitigate the partial loss of Cerebos Gardens and to minimise land take from Victoria Gardens during construction.
On the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wishes me to give, let me be clear that as part of the HS2 land disposal policy, any public space acquired for HS2 that is to revert back to a public space and is to be disposed of will be offered to the original owning authority for their first refusal. That was always our intention and I make an absolute commitment that it will be the case. We will have cases in which privately held land is used temporarily during the construction process, and we intend to ensure that the private landowner has first refusal on taking that land back into their ownership.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Secretary of State has significant and wide-ranging powers, so it is important to look at how the land that we cannot return will be replaced. I have already mentioned a couple of instances. The process has already been subject to the petitioning process and people will have had an opportunity to make their case and the Committee will have responded.
I will go further to suggest that the project will deliver additional public space and access. Some of the areas where we are carrying out environmental mitigation may be areas where we would wish the public to have access. There is a difficult balance to be struck between the needs of a local wildlife group that does not want dog walkers and disturbance to the wildlife in a particular nature conservation area, and the members of the public who probably would not understand how ground-nesting birds and other species could be affected by public access, but I am confident that there will be areas where public access is increased, and that will be to the benefit of everybody.
I cannot stress enough how strongly I absolutely understand what the hon. Gentleman has said. The land will be offered to the original owning authority for first refusal, so I hope his concerns have been allayed.
Andy McDonald
I can declare myself fully satisfied, or almost. I have only two issues. The Minister mentioned the instance in Ealing. If I have heard him correctly, that space will be not traded, but exchanged, and will repose in the local ownership of Ealing Borough Council. He has indicated that that is the case. If I have got that wrong, perhaps he will clarify that for me.
On the wider point of a local authority having held property effectively in trust for its citizens, if in the course of the next several years we see the nature, scope and range of local authorities change, and notwithstanding the fact that the original owning local authority may no longer exist as an entity, I assume that the property will be transferred to a similarly constituted successor local authority or other such public authority that would meet the requirements or description of being publicly owned. As we go through the devolution process, we may see increased powers for local boroughs or combined authorities, and the property rights may repose in bodies we have not yet decided on. Is the Minister able to reassure me about that?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman is right that local government may be reformed. We may see more combined authorities or local authorities merging, or county and borough councils may become unitary in future. I can reassure him that whatever the structure of local government, the land will repose within a local government structure. A local parish or town council might wish to step in and take over the management of the land, which probably makes control of the land closer to the community. He should have no fears that, however local government changes might be enacted in future years, the basis of the clause as it relates to commons and open spaces is fundamental and will not change.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister. Having been fully satisfied, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Trees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Having looked at historic buildings, historic sites, cemeteries and so on, we now move on to trees, which are every bit as important in terms of the heritage and the value of our countryside. Of course, we feel intensely disappointed when we have to impact upon ancient woodland. Indeed, much of the tunnelling that has been carried out as part of the environmental mitigation of this scheme is to protect ancient woodland.
Clause 30 disapplies protection for trees subject to tree preservation orders or in conservation areas, in relation to work to trees that is required for the purposes of constructing or maintaining phase 1 of HS2. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008, sections 198(1) and 202(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and in regulations made under section 202A of that Act. Section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act deals with the:
“Preservation of trees in conservation areas”—
and sections of that Act are disapplied.
The clause refers to “tree works”. Perhaps I could clarify that this refers to works consisting of
“the removal, topping or lopping of a tree or the cutting back of the roots”.
Concerns may have been raised—and certainly have been with the environmental groups that I have met—about how we can continue to protect trees, particularly where excavations may affect the roots of trees, for example. I can reassure the Committee that all works must be done in accordance with the environmental minimum requirements. If the Bill is passed, phase 1 will have been approved by Parliament, and therefore the powers there will be the ones that are used to carry out the works to trees.
Sir Simon Burns
My hon. Friend’s comments on this very important area are welcome. Could he also share with the Committee the number of new trees that will be planted to make the whole line of route more environmentally friendly? I believe that it is about 2 million.
Mr Goodwill
I can certainly confirm that 2 million trees will be planted as part of the mitigation in connection with phase 1 of High Speed 2, which will be a tremendous augmentation of the arboricultural heritage of our country. Indeed, I had a meeting two weeks ago with the Woodland Trust, and we looked at how we can best choose the species of tree that will be introduced as part of this massive planting programme. I have already mentioned the issue of the elm and Dutch elm disease, and the ash and ash dieback.
We are also looking at some of the particularly valuable trees that will be lost. There is a famous pear tree—it was voted tree of the year last year—which unfortunately will be taken out by the scheme. As far as possible, it is our intention to take cuttings from that tree and to nurture them so that we can have a number of examples of that tree which, incidentally, I am told was reaching the end of its natural biological life. Although the tree is being cut down, it is not being cut off in its prime. It is very important that we can ensure that the tree planting that we carry out is sympathetic with the sort of trees that, in some cases, will be removed because of the application of clause 30 to trees in areas affected by the scheme.
The planting of these 2 million trees is part of our wish to ensure that the scheme causes no net environmental loss. So for every tree that unfortunately is removed a number of new trees will be planted, which in the fullness of time will benefit the wider community.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Overhead lines
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
We move from trees to overhead lines, which is not quite as empathetic an area. Clause 31 allows the installation and diversion of overhead lines to be carried out as part of the authorised works and grants the necessary consent for such works. This clause removes the need for the Secretary of State’s consent under the Electricity Act 1989 where the installation of the line is a work authorised by the Bill. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008. I beg to move that clause 31 stand part of the Bill.
Andy McDonald
I simply want to raise the issue of the undergrounding of power lines. I know that that has been raised in other places, in particular with regard to areas of natural beauty. This clause speaks to installation and diversion of overhead lines. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee about the extent to which any power lines are going to be put underground?
Mr Goodwill
The undergrounding of overhead power lines has been considered for those power lines affected by HS2 works already. It was concluded that it was neither an environmentally or economically beneficial solution. The removal of existing infrastructure anywhere within an area of outstanding natural beauty is not properly a matter for the HS2 Bill. Environmental mitigation and compensation has been provided by the project to compensate for the physical effects of the railway. It should be noted that the National Grid visual impact provision project initiated by Ofgem assessed national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and Wales and reported in November 2014, identifying eight such protected sites where undergrounding might be beneficial. The Chilterns was not selected. I hope that that will clarify that we are not embarking on a widescale undergrounding of power lines as part of this project. We believe that that would go beyond the powers we would need to construct the railway.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Water
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
We move from electricity to water—I think it is only fire that we have not covered. Clause 32 introduces schedule 21, which provides for the disapplication of certain legislation relating to water abstraction and impounding and other matters related to water and drainage. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008. The clause disapplies various sections of the following Acts: the Water Resources Act 1991, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the Water Industry Act 1991 and part 4 of the Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009.
Land drainage, flood defence and water resources and fisheries are protected by the provisions included in part 5 of schedule 32, which requires the approval of the appropriate authority, such as the Environment Agency, for specified works that may affect these resources. I hope that the Committee is content that, by disapplying these restrictions on works that can be done in relation to water resources, we are sensibly introducing a provision that was already part of the Crossrail Act 2008, which is a standard provision for projects such as this.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 21 agreed to.
Clause 33
buildings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Clause 33 introduces schedules 22 and 23, which make provision for disapplication of certain legislation relating to buildings and party walls. Schedule 22 provides for the disapplication or modification of various provisions of the Building Act 1984 and building regulations. The provisions include drain repairs and disconnections, the raising of chimneys and the construction of cellars and rooms below subsoil water level. Schedule 23 modifies the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. Among the modifications is an amended process for the resolution of disputes. Disputes will be settled by a single arbitrator agreed by both parties or, in default of agreement, appointed by the president of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Either party may appeal to the county court against the award of the arbitrator.
We changed the process for the resolution of disputes because under the 1996 Act disputes are settled by a surveyor appointed by the parties or, failing agreement, by three surveyors. One is appointed by each party, plus a third surveyor appointed by those surveyors. Such surveyors will not necessarily have the specialist expertise required to make determinations about railway infrastructure. Under the Bill, disputes are to be determined by a single surveyor or engineer appointed in default of agreement by the president of the Institution of Civil Engineers. This will ensure that the arbitrator will have the necessary specialist expertise. In addition, the process has been streamlined to secure the speedy determination of disputes. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill
Schedules 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 34
Street works
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
The clause relates to street works and introduces schedule 24, which disapplies various controls relating to works in or near streets and highways. The schedule disapplies sections in the following Acts: the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1970, the Highways Act 1980, the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1986, the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004.
The controls being disapplied include provisions that would require licence or approval from the relevant highways authority. For example, the need to obtain approval before certain works, such as the erection of scaffolding or the placing of a retaining wall near a highway, has been removed for works authorised by the Bill. A further example is that the power of highways authorities to direct when works that could affect traffic can take place will not apply for the authorised works. I must add that we are at all times engaging with communities and local authorities to ensure that we minimise the impact of our construction. For example, we will look at routes into which lorries can be channelled to minimise the effect.
All works, once again, must be done in accordance with the environmental minimum requirements. The highways authorities have certain protections. There are protective provisions for highways and traffic in part 1 of schedule 32. For example, in exercising the powers under the Bill, the nominated undertaker is required to have regard to the potential disruption of traffic that may be caused and seek to minimise such disruption as far as reasonably practical. I have been involved in negotiations to ensure we can, for example, construct temporary routes so trucks do not have an impact on local communities. We will, as far as possible, use a line of route for transported materials to prevent having an impact on local highways.
The approval of the highways authority is required for bridges carrying a highway over the railway or the railway over a highway, or tunnels within 8 metres of the surface of a carriageway. The nominated undertaker must not alter or disturb any highways authority property without the consent of the authority. They are required to make good or compensate the highways authority for any damage to a highway resulting from the construction of the authorised works. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Andy McDonald
On the issue of disruption, will the Minister say something about the timing of works in all areas, whether rural or urban? I am thinking particularly about Euston, where people are going to be subjected to very considerable works for a lengthy period of time. Will there be protected periods during which works will not be conducted so that people will be guaranteed some semblance of peace? We may deal with that when we discuss lorries, but will that obtain for the street works?
Mr Goodwill
We are in negotiations with local highways authorities along the route to ensure that we minimise the impact on communities as we construct HS2. That might involve restrictions on the times when vehicles may be operated or, indeed, times when construction is not being carried out. We are absolutely sympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed and will ensure that, as far as possible, we can react to them. It is also about looking at the scheduling of the work. It is a difficult conundrum to know whether it is best to do an awful lot of work in a short time to minimise the time taken, or to string out the work over a longer period so that the frequency of trucks and, for example, the amount of disruption and dust is reduced.
Traffic management plans will be consulted on with local authorities, so they will have the opportunity to engage with us. Although we are disapplying some of the legislation, we will certainly be working closely with local authorities to ensure that the work is done as sympathetically as possible. Indeed, in some cases we have purchased properties because they will be unacceptably affected by construction. Although such properties do not need to be demolished for the construction of the railway, we understand that the level of disruption will be such that it would be neither sensible nor reasonable to expect people to remain in them. Of course, when the line is complete we will go to the market with those properties to ensure that the taxpayer gets as much money back as possible. We might even make a profit on some properties during the construction.
Andy McDonald
Putting aside the profit-making element of properties sold during the construction, if the Minister turns his attention to the logistics and layout at Euston, he will notice that some of the tower blocks to the north and east of the development will be within metres of the works. Even at this stage, is the Minister involved in any discussions to explore whether additional blocks might be vacated and people offered alternative accommodation? Are people pressing for that? When I visited the area last Friday I was horrified by the proximity of the development to some significant dwellings where people’s lives will undoubtedly be made very difficult indeed.
Mr Goodwill
It is certainly the case that, because of the impact of building the railway, we have procured some of the residential properties at Euston that the hon. Gentleman described as tower blocks. We went to look at a specific property with the leader of the council and I was very sympathetic to the concerns that were expressed. There might be an opportunity, perhaps during the periods of the highest construction activity, for people to be temporarily relocated from the relevant side of the building, but we concluded that it would not be in taxpayers’ best interests to procure the entire building and build additional provision for its residents.
Nevertheless, we understand the disruption. Where possible, particularly if, for example, people have disabilities so are in the properties 24/7, we will look at what we can do to try to mitigate any negative effects. HS2 Ltd is in discussions to find out how we can do something to temporarily alleviate such problems, where they exist.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 24 agreed to.
Clause 35
Noise
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
This follows on neatly from our previous discussion about street works and relates specifically to lorries. Clause 35 introduces schedule 25, which contains provisions relating to the granting of permits for the use of heavy commercial vehicles on roads where there are heavy-lorry restrictions. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008. Local authorities have the power to make orders prohibiting and restricting the use of heavy goods vehicles on specified roads. Such an order is enforced in Greater London. Schedule 25 streamlines the process for the use of permits authorising lorries to use restricted roads for the purposes of the construction of phase 1 of HS2.
I can reassure the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, before he jumps up, that the measure will not completely remove the powers of local authorities in that regard. Permits will still be issued by the local authority. Schedule 25 will streamline the process for the issue of permits and includes an appeal procedure to the Secretary of State and an expedited process for the issue of emergency permits.
Part 1 of schedule 31 requires a nominated undertaker to
“have regard to the potential disruption of traffic which may be caused”
and to
“seek to minimise such disruption so far as is reasonably practicable.”
In addition, those matters are covered in the environmental minimum requirements and the highways sub-forum, a group of the relevant local highway authorities chaired by HS2 Ltd.
Incidentally, this morning we discussed the availability of the scope and methodology report, which the hon. Gentleman said he would like to see. I have brought him a copy of that weighty tome, which I hope will be his bedtime reading this evening. The report contains a number of the reassurances he sought. In terms of environmental mitigation, we are on top of everything and are ensuring that we recognise the impact this project will have on people. Where things can be done to limit that impact, they will be done.
Andy McDonald
Briefly, I want to return to the issue of the transporting of goods by lorries. The Minister will be aware that one of the most significant concerns of the people of Camden is the extra loading that will fall on to the roads around Euston station during construction. Can he give further detail about the commitment being made to transport and transfer out of the construction site as much of the goods and the spoil as possible by rail, as opposed to road? That, in itself, will be one of the most significant ways to mitigate the impact on the residents of Camden. If he will say something about that, I shall be extremely grateful.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman talks about excavated material. Material from the tunnelling process—the majority of the line from Euston to Old Oak Common is a tunnel—will be transported out to the end of the tunnel; it will not be put on lorries at Euston and transported around there. We have a lot of experience of that in this country. We have, for example, the Queen Elizabeth line. We have a number of major projects being delivered from a transport infrastructure and housing and office point of view in London, so we have some experience of how to limit and mitigate the impacts of traffic.
As the Minister responsible for cycling, I am also aware of the risks caused to pedestrians and cyclists by tipper trucks. A number of accidents have happened where vehicles are turning left and cyclists have found themselves on the inside. The codes of practice that we have previously used will, I am sure, be used by the construction industry as it delivers the project, to ensure that we minimise that risk.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman proposes a new clause later in the Bill with regard to transporting material by rail. We can discuss that subject in more detail when we debate that new clause. I understand his concern to limit, where possible, the amount of material transported by road. When we have to transport goods and material by road, we must ensure that we do so in the way that is most sympathetic to the community, working with the local authority and, as we saw last week in Camden, having a location where people can go to get information about the sequencing of work. They will then know which roads might be closed or particularly used for trucks, so that they can plan their lives around that.
We are very conscious of the impact that this project will have during construction, but we are also very conscious of the long-term benefits for the Camden area in general and Euston in particular of the delivery of this transformational project, which will make Euston every bit as much a totemic station as King’s Cross and others around the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 25 agreed to.
Clause 36
Noise
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
A theme is developing for what we are doing to limit, mitigate and manage the disruption for people in the areas in which construction is taking place. We are talking about not only the urban environment in Camden, but the rural locations where many people regard the peace and tranquillity of their area as central to their ability to enjoy their homes and community.
The clause introduces schedule 26, which modifies existing legislation on construction noise, giving a defence to the nominated undertaker against statutory nuisance claims in respect of works carried out in phase 1 of HS2. Unsurprisingly, similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008. Appeals against either the service by a local authority of a notice imposing noise requirements, or a local authority’s refusal to give consent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 will be dealt with differently under the modifications that the schedule makes to noise legislation in respect of phase 1 work. They are to be determined by the Secretary of State or, if the parties agree, by arbitration, rather than in a magistrates court.
A defence is provided for failure to comply with a noise abatement notice in respect of noise caused by the construction, maintenance or operation of phase 1 of HS2 and cannot reasonably be avoided. An order cannot be made by a magistrates court in proceedings for statutory nuisance in respect of noise caused by phase 1 works if the works are being carried out in accordance with a notice or consent issued by the local authority under the 1974 Act, or if the noise cannot reasonably be avoided. In that regard, we are modifying certain sections of the 1974 Act and of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The reason why we are making the modifications is that, given the scale of HS2 phase 1, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State or an arbitrator to determine appeals against refusal to give consent to work. If local authorities have given consent under the 1974 Act, the works may be carried out without impediment. Again unsurprisingly, all works must be done in accordance with the environmental minimum requirements.
On redress for people disturbed by noise from construction work associated with HS2 phase 1, the Secretary of State will ensure that a construction commissioner is appointed by the time that phase 1 construction begins. If individuals have a complaint during construction that cannot be resolved through the nominated undertaker’s complaints process, they will have the option to refer their complaint to the construction commissioner. Further information on the role of the commissioner is provided in information paper “G3: Construction Commissioner”. I assure the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that, should I still be the Minister at the time, I will take a keen interest in the appointment of someone who will be seen as a champion of the people affected, not as someone on the side of the project. That is important. Similarly, with the HS2 residents’ commissioner, we have a person appointed who will be seen as being on the side of residents and able to further their concerns effectively.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Minister for that, because it was extremely helpful, especially when he referred to the commissioner. I hope that later in our sittings we will get the chance to explore the independence of the commissioner in greater detail.
I note what the Minister said that was specific to the Control of Pollution Act 1974, but I wonder whether he shares my concern for the residents of Camden. Areas such as Drummond Street and Cobourg Street, which I had the privilege of visiting a few days ago, are remarkably quiet. There seems to be a misconception that people who live in central London are somehow well used to noise and bustle and therefore cannot be afforded the same sorts of facilities as those who live in quieter, more rural, pastoral circumstances.
Will the Minister give some thought to ensuring that some sort of parity of esteem between urban and rural areas filters through everything done in the name of HS2? There is no justification in my mind for people living in such areas as Cobourg Street—many of them elderly and disabled—having to suffer a level of noise that would not be tolerated under the scheme in rural areas. I do not know whether he can give me any assurances about that, but that is certainly something we are looking for.
Mr Goodwill
I am not sure whether I can give the hon. Gentleman any assurances or reassurances, but I can explain why we have a different compensation package for rural areas from the one for urban areas. Although property might be quite a long way from the railway in many rural areas, there may be nothing in between. In urban areas, someone could be 120 metres from the railway, but with two streets of houses in between.
Although the hon. Gentleman was in Drummond Street in Camden on a quiet day, it is a bustling urban environment, and the value of the houses there relates more to the central London location and the easy connections to other parts of the capital, whereas in more rural areas, people might have bought properties for the rural tranquillity. I understand why we need to have different compensation packages in place. I hope he realises that if one lives in a large metropolis, such as our wonderful capital, one does rather expect that there will be a lot of construction going on from time to time. That is not the case in many rural villages, where the green belt would be extended and where there may be areas of outstanding natural beauty, or where there may be conservation areas in the centre of the village. I think we are looking at a different situation, but that said, we do need to ensure that where people’s lives are disrupted, we make efforts to mitigate those effects where we can.
I have already talked about lorries, street works and so on, and we will do everything we can on that, working with local authorities to ensure that we limit the impact on people. As I have said, we have already purchased some properties that, although not required for the project, would be so detrimentally affected by the construction process that we felt it was not fair to allow those people to stay in their houses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 26 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Westminster Hall
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
High Streets
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
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of high streets.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I am delighted to have secured this timely debate as the Budget fast approaches. I am also pleased that hon. Members from all parts of the House have taken the time to come along this morning.
It is almost four years since Mary Portas published her review of the future of Britain’s high streets. Contained within were 28 recommendations for improving our town centres, many of which are yet to be implemented. I sought this debate not because I think that all the recommendations should have been implemented—I do not—but because the health of our high streets has not improved significantly in the past four years. It is important to highlight the challenges that shops on Britain’s high streets continue to face, to raise the profile of the issue once again, and to encourage the Government to take some relatively straightforward steps to alleviate the burdens that are threatening the existence of small, independent businesses across Britain.
I know that colleagues will want to raise issues particular to their constituencies and to bring ideas to the table, so I will focus my remarks on several key points. The challenges faced by high streets are many and varied, including tough competition from online retailers and supermarkets, excessive parking restrictions and/or charges, and the proliferation of tax break-benefiting charity shops. Many of the symptoms are also causes of the steady decline in the fortunes of small, independent retailers on UK high streets. Equally, it is neither possible nor desirable to alter many of the factors that put these retailers out of business: for example, it would be retrograde in the extreme to prevent supermarkets from opening small stores or to somehow thwart customers’ choice to shop online. However, there are four measures that, if enacted, would have an immediate and positive impact on our high streets, shifting the balance back in favour of small businesses. In this wide-ranging area of debate, I will concentrate my remarks on those suggestions and make the case for taking urgent action.
First, charity shops should be reclassified under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 so that the local authority’s permission is required to change the use of a shop to a charity shop. Secondly, the mandatory rate relief for charity shops should be reduced from 85% to 50%. Thirdly, the sale of new goods in charity shops should be monitored and the restrictions enforced more effectively. Fourthly, business rates should be reduced and the system, which unfairly punishes property-intensive industries, should be simplified.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He will recall that in the last Parliament the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills carried out an inquiry on the future of our high streets and retail, and it recommended fundamental reform of business rates. With the Chancellor due to announce his Budget soon, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to reduce that burden on our city centres and high streets?
Mark Menzies
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Treasury is always listening, so it will be aware of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report and will have heard my hon. Friend’s comment. I am sure that the Chancellor will include such a measure in his Budget.
In the lead-up to the Budget, the Treasury is making encouraging noises suggesting that my point about business rates may finally be addressed. Although we must continue to apply pressure to ensure that business rates are made less onerous, the issue has been considered extensively, so I intend to focus predominantly on my first three points. Similarly, I have campaigned heavily over the past four years to relax Sunday trading legislation, but there is little point in raising the matter again today because the Government have included measures in the Enterprise Bill to devolve the power to relax such restrictions. The fact that local authorities will have the power to zone Sunday trading hours to help high streets and city centres over out-of-town retail parks is particularly welcome, and I encourage the Government to continue their endeavours. In that and many other areas, the Government have shown themselves to be willing to carry through necessary reforms, regardless of attempts by vested interests to sustain the status quo. I shall use this opportunity to encourage Ministers to act similarly on charity shops.
Napoleon famously said that we were a nation of shopkeepers. I wish that we were. In recent years, we have increasingly become a nation of charity shopkeepers, as high streets up and down the country have been filled with charity shops. There are currently over 10,000 in the UK, and their number increased by 30% between October 2008 and October 2011. In my constituency, the scale of the increase has been impossible to ignore: there are now 15 charity shops in St Annes and less than three miles down the road, in the centre of Lytham, there are nine more—with, I am informed, another two on the way.
Let me state clearly that I recognise the value of charity shops. Each shop raises thousands of pounds a year for good causes and serves an excellent practical purpose as a place for people to dispose of unwanted possessions in the knowledge that they will not be wasted. Equally, they provide a community space for local shoppers and volunteers, filling shopping space that in some cases would otherwise go empty. However, the question has to be asked: are we heading towards saturation?
Charity shops are not universally welcomed by shoppers or by other retailers, who can struggle to compete. As someone who worked in the retail industry for 15 years before being elected to Parliament, I not only recognise but welcome the competitive nature of the business. If there is no market for a shop’s goods, if it cannot attract customers and if it cannot make a profit, it must inevitably close. It is not the business of Government or any other institution to support a failed enterprise that has no future. The problem is that we are not even allowing retail businesses to attempt to attract customers or to try to make a profit; in fact, we are denying them the chance to open in the first place.
No potential future shopkeeper, all of whom should frankly be applauded for being willing to enter such a difficult industry, can possibly compete with a charity shop. An ordinary retail outlet will largely employ its staff. Over 2.7 million people work in over 270,000 shops across the UK. From next month, all those businesses will pay the majority of their staff at least £7.20 an hour, rising to £9 an hour by 2020. Those who want to set up a shop should be commended for providing valuable new employment opportunities for local people. In contrast, according to the Charity Retail Association, only some 17,000 people are in paid employment in charity shops. Before one even begins to consider the multiple and varied tax breaks on offer, charity shops work because they have an unpaid, volunteer workforce of around 213,000 across the country. When one considers that fact and the value we attach to making work pay in this country, I suggest that we agree—at least we should agree—that it is far better to have a business in shop premises than a charitable organisation manned purely by volunteers.
Again, that is not to say that charity shops are intrinsically problematic. They most certainly are not. The fact that charity shops are staffed by volunteers is actually a good thing. Many of us know from our own communities that charity shops often provide enormously valuable opportunities for a diverse range of people to come together, including those with disabilities and those who have been out of the workplace for a long time. The problem is simply that there are too many shops and the numbers are ever increasing. Shoppers on our high streets are suffering from a lack of variety as a result. Indeed, many charities are struggling to find volunteers because of competition from other charity shops. It is now time to enact solutions, rather than to merely consider this oft-diagnosed problem. That is why my first suggestion is that charity shops should be reclassified under the 1987 order, leaving only commercially operating enterprises in class A1 and enabling local authorities to prevent the saturation of high streets with charity shops.
As I have already outlined, Lytham and St Annes are increasingly saturated with charity shops. Local councillors are frustrated at their lack of power to prevent a further increase in numbers. Although I entirely agree that it is far better to have a charity shop than no shop at all, it is often assumed that a charity has taken out a lease because there is no competition from prospective businesses to move into the premises. That was indeed the case in many parts of the UK, particularly after the 2008 recession, but it is often not the case, particularly in affluent areas. In Lytham, a shop recently announced that it intended to move, leaving its existing premises vacant. I know for a fact that a local business owner would have been pleased to have the opportunity to move in and to make a go of setting up an enterprise there, with all the resulting employment opportunities and benefits to the local economy. Remarkably, however, competition for the premises was not the fair competition that I spoke of earlier, because it came from a charity shop.
No landlord thinking purely about the bottom line, as is to be expected, would choose to rent their shop to an untried, untested business that is forced to pay staff at least £7.20 an hour, with exorbitant business rates on top—not when they can reach agreement on a long-term lease with a charity. I know of cases in Lytham of leases being negotiated for terms of up to 10 years. Charity shops do not need to pay their staff, they do not buy the majority of their stock, and they pay at most 20% of the rates of other retailers. That is not fair competition; it is a complete distortion of the bargaining power of the two parties, which we have now entrenched in law.
Mary Portas stated in her 2011 review:
“start ups should be the number one priority when it comes to giving discounts. The business rate discounts that charity shops enjoy builds a disadvantage into the system that is causing a problem. Landlords are choosing the safe option of charity shops and small new retailers aren’t getting a look in. There will be no growth and innovation now or in the future if we don’t address this.”
Of course, if good landlords who cared about their local communities were a universal commodity, there would be no need for local government to step in. Clearly, however, we cannot leave landlords to self-regulate the complexion of our high streets. Powers must be given to local authorities to enable them to determine whether an area needs yet another charity shop, or whether to allow new businesses the opportunity to establish. If, after a reasonable period of time, no small independent retailer has come forward to take on a lease, it would be perfectly reasonable to allow a charity to take on the premises. The power would mean simply that local authorities could refuse to grant planning approval for a change of use from a shop to a charity shop.
Recently, action has been taken to streamline and to speed up the planning system in this area under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. I see no reason why further swift action cannot be taken to make a relatively straightforward change to differentiate charity shops from other shops. I see no grounds that render such an approach unreasonable. A charity shop is clearly different from a commercially run shop in all the ways I have outlined. The law has built in the differences. I would therefore give short shrift to any claim that a change in classification would give cause for judicial review. That would be a base excuse for a Government to use if they wanted to avoid taking such action. Ultimately, our commitment to localism was a large reason why a Conservative Government were elected last May. It is important that the Government carry through on our commitment and allow local people to develop high streets that work better for them.
I will speed through the rest of my recommendations as they are far less controversial and have been suggested widely before; also, I am conscious that several other Members wish to contribute to the debate. The second proposal that I urge the Government to adopt is to reduce the mandatory rate of relief from business rates from 80% to 50%. The idea is not new and it was proposed as a positive way to level the playing field between charity shops and other businesses in a Welsh Government consultation which was completed in July 2013. The consultation was supposed to form the basis of discussion between the devolved Administrations and the Government, but no outcome has yet appeared. I make the proposal again in the hope that the Government will carefully consider implementing it.
As the Welsh Government report makes clear, the professionalism and commercial focus of the charity shop industry has increased markedly over the past 20 years. As a result, the detailed recommendation was that the amount of rate relief available for larger charity shops occupying premises of higher rateable value should be restricted to an upper rateable value limit of £36,000; all charity shops should receive 80% rate relief on the first £12,000 of the rateable value; charity rate relief should be reduced from 80% to 50% on the next £24,000 of rateable value; and for rateable values in excess of £36,000, business rate relief should fall to zero, but in tiers. All charity shops would therefore receive some rate relief from business rates, but the amount of relief they received would be reduced in stages. Those seem to be perfectly sound, well thought through proposals—made, it is worth mentioning, by a Labour Administration—especially when set in the context of a proliferation in the number of charity shops.
I also want a change to the way in which rateable value is calculated for charities with more than one premises in the same town, in order to avoid a loophole in the system. It is right to question whether charities should receive the same rate relief on their second or even third premises on the same high street; if they did not, there is no cause to believe that charity shops would be forced to close as, lest we forget, they have little to pay in overheads and should be paying virtually nothing in stock costs. Equally, such a measure would incentivise the foundation of charity shops in smaller premises, favouring smaller, often local charities over what are now, frankly, large national chains. The results of such changes can only be positive. They would level the playing field between commercial and charitable operations, and put some extra money in the hands of Government. Given that, I cannot imagine why it has not already been done.
The Welsh Government consultation also recommended the introduction of my third proposal: to enforce and monitor more effectively the extant restrictions on the sale of new goods in charity shops. If charities are found to be trading in new goods, particularly in areas where commercial shops are selling the same products, relief from business rates should be reduced or even removed. Again, powers should be given to local authorities to enforce that effectively.
In Lytham, of the 71 shops in the town centre, 69 sell a range of goods that the nine charity shops also stock, including cards, clothes, books, pictures, artificial flowers and general domestic goods. Inevitably, some of those goods have to be new. I do not advocate charities being prevented from selling Christmas cards, for example, or certain other new products that have long been associated with fundraising initiatives. I recognise that many charity shops sell only a limited amount of new goods and that roughly 85% of goods sold in charity shops are from donations. However, some of the larger charity shops in particular are making considerably more than the average 6.8% of income for which the sale of new goods in UK charity shops supposedly accounts.
As charity shops, especially those belonging to large national chains, become increasingly professional in the way they market and sell goods, it is important to restate the principle that only businesses paying full business rates should be allowed to compete with one another. Only businesses should be allowed to purchase stock to sell, while charity shops should endeavour to have close to 100% of sales in donated goods. As the number of charity shops increases, so does the amount of competition between them. It can no longer be guaranteed that charity shops are abiding by either the principle or the law on the restriction on the sale of new goods. Not only should charities be reminded of their obligations not to undercut retailers that do not benefit from charity shops’ volunteer workforce or tax breaks, but those obligations should be enforced with powers given to local authorities.
On business rates, only yesterday the highly respected British Retail Consortium warned that the pressures of, in particular, higher wage costs as a result of the national living wage and the apprenticeship levy, coupled with the overall pressures that high street retailers continue to face, could lead to the loss of 900,000 jobs over the next 10 years. Of the 270,000 shops in the UK, up to 74,000 could shut, with the impact greatest in Wales and the north of England. If that dire warning is not sufficient to elicit a response in the Budget this year, I do not know what will.
For too long we have ignored the plight of small retailers and allowed exorbitant duties to cripple their ability to compete with online and large out-of-town retailers. There is still a place for small high street retailers. People enjoy shopping in their local towns and the variety that a multiplicity of retailers affords. It is not the case that small shops are obsolete. Retail is an industry overburdened with taxes and red tape. The Government recognised that and conducted a review of business rates last year. Now, however, it is time for action. Clearly, some form of property tax will continue to be imposed on retailers, but it would be a welcome relief to all businesses if the Government capped the national multiplier now. Rateable values must be assessed with greater frequency, with open market valuations made more sympathetic to retailers. The whole system must be simplified, with all reliefs and exemptions kept in particular review.
We have a real opportunity not to sustain high street retailers artificially, but to lift much of the pressure from their shoulders. If the Government are going to impose—as they are right to do—a national living wage, they must ensure that the tax burden is lifted in a corresponding fashion. Also, we want more people in work on a better wage. If retailers are forced to close in great numbers, neither of those objectives is fulfilled.
I could cover many more points, but I am sure that other speakers today will do so. My plea to the Government is to take action on business rates and to address the unequal balance between charity shops and small retailers. For too long, both Conservative and Labour Governments have been reluctant to tackle these issues, and they have intensified to the extent that no action is no longer an option. My constituency does not need another charity shop. Local people want small businesses to be given a chance to succeed and, in future, I hope that they can.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. May I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing today’s debate? I will take a slightly different tack as I reflect on my local high streets across York—not necessarily in the centre of York, but more in the suburbs.
I am proud to represent what is now Britain’s best high street, Bishopthorpe Road—affectionately known as Bishy Road—in York. The journey it has been on is really quite an inspiring story. Back in 2005, when the old Terry’s factory closed, morale in the community was really hit. We also had the closure of the local post office, and Bishy Road, outside the city walls, was feeling the pinch. What has happened since has been the result not of Government action, but of community action. That is the important story that I have to tell, although retailers tell me that Government action could help their cause.
For example, business rates are really hurting local businesses’ ability to be sustainable. Therefore, my message to the Chancellor about the Budget would be to look at how business rates can be used to regenerate the local high street—which would be essential to assist small trainers to sustain their businesses, because we see so many businesses spring up, only to disappear within 12 months or so—and how business rates can be used to bring life to the community. High streets should not just be about commodities, but should be very much at the centre of the community.
Next week we will also have the important decision about Sunday trading. We know that if trade is moved out of our high streets and into the supermarkets, that will have an impact on the small traders who are trying to make their way. We also know that 91% of shop workers oppose the Government’s proposals.
The other vital point—one on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman—is about planning. It is really important that we do not have control by the landowner, but that councils are given the powers to determine who resides in the high street and to enable the community to grow on the back of that. It should not just be about landowners having the power any more; it should be about handing that power back to communities to shape their high streets if we want to see them at the centre of our communities.
I want to come back to the story of Bishy Road and say how fantastic it is. Under the visionary leadership of Jonny Hayes, a local trader on the street, the traders were brought together, not to compete but to co-operate. They formed the Bishy Road Traders Association to market together under a common identity, not as individuals vying for a space in the market. They created the strapline “I heart Bishy Road” and put it out across the city. And yes, they are all separate businesses, ranging from places to eat and buy produce to a bike shop and stores that sell just about everything under the sun, but they work together. That is the secret of Bishy Road: they identify with the community; they are a community—a community of traders serving their local community. Service is at the heart of their message. Knowing that all will benefit from people visiting Bishy Road, they work together in that collaborative way, because as people walk up and down, they are most likely to drop into one or two of the other premises on the street.
The local community is at the heart of the Bishy Road vision, so the traders identify themselves with it. They are involved with the local school. During the floods, the Bishy Road traders were at the heart of the rescue operation, trying to get people out of their homes and keep them dry, as the floods were just off the Bishy Road high street. There is such a strong relationship now: the street has a family feel. People want to come and experience that, not just from the local community but from across the city. It is about a sense of belonging, supporting and pulling together, working together for the local community. The traders had the vision and the community is behind it. It is very much about the traders giving something back to the community and creating that sense of working together.
The third successful element of Bishy Road is that it is at the heart of community events. That started with a day when they decided to try to get people out of their cars and get them walking, so they closed the street. Since then we have had event after event. We were very fortunate to have the Tour de France come through Bishy Road at a pace and, since then, the Tour de Yorkshire. Bishy Road has been a real focus of community activities, to the point where 10,000 people came on to the street to celebrate as a community with a street party. Bishy Road now even has its own Christmas lights, which puts money back into charities in the community. It is a fantastic story—a vision set out by the traders that has brought the area and the community, which was feeling the pain from the closure of the factory and from other commodities, to life again. This year’s floods have really shown how the community now works together as a complete unit.
But it does not stop there: in York it is spreading throughout the city—this is the great story. Again under strong leadership, Micklegate—which is within the city walls, with a different mix of traders and residents—is now pulling together to create its own identity and community. That will come to the fore as it starts marketing its identity this year.
Fossgate, another section of the city, has a footprint in the night-time economy in particular, but also in the daytime economy. It is a really pleasant area now to walk down. Back in the olden days it used to be where the prisons were, but it is now a fantastic place for people to go to in the night-time and choose a venue to eat, drink and enjoy themselves, and it has its own identity. This area of the city was particularly hit by the recent floods. While it is a thriving community, it is also struggling. That is why I say to the Minister that it is important that we get on top of what happens to small businesses when they flood and, when it comes to their insurance, ensure that we have a Flood Re scheme for the small business community.
It does not stop there either. Next in our sights is Front Street in Acomb. Once a thriving local shopping community in the ’70s and ’80s, businesses then started to struggle and either moved to out-of-town shopping centres or were hit by business rates. National chains then moved in, which broke up the sense of community. However, I am pleased to say that there are plans. There are three bookmakers on the high street and a money shop—it does not have that sense of identity at the moment—but plans are afoot, and they include charity shops. However, instead of seeing charity shops as the enemy, we should very much see them as part of the community. Therefore, the important thing is working together as a community—that is the secret—and not necessarily marking out the different types of businesses. That is harder with national chains, because they have other interests to pay attention to, but if we can get them to pull together into that part of the community, there will be more of a sense of building up the high street.
On Front Street in York, we have the Gateway centre—it is a local church, but it is also the hub of the community. It has its own café, it is where the food bank is and it provides debt advice, family support and community activities. There are so many opportunities in Acomb to create another expression of community, building on those footprints to make communities feel like home again. Front Street is using events to bring the area to life. We have Acomb Alive and the Acomb dance, arts and music festival—the ADAM festival—where more than 50 acts have performed on the high street, which has wide pavements and is ideal to build that community sense.
We have some unique opportunities across York. Since the floods, we have also seen independent traders right across the city pulling together to say, “What about our row of shops?” It is important not just to focus on the city centre, but to centre our shopping centres in our communities and pull people together. What I would say to colleagues from across the House is: why not come and visit York? Come and visit Bishy Road and talk to traders to see exactly what their experience has been. They would love to share their story and see their footprint.
Andrew Stephenson
I would love to visit York and am delighted that the hon. Lady is making such an eloquent case for her local high street, which was rightly recognised in the Great British High Street competition 2015. Perhaps she would also pay tribute to some fantastic Lancashire towns, such as Colne, which was a finalist in the market high street category and sadly lost out to another Yorkshire area.
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Gentleman is obviously proud of his community, but I have to say that taking the prize was an honour for our city, so if anyone is on their way to Lancashire, I would say make sure it is via Yorkshire first.
To conclude, we have opportunities to learn from each other. Not everything is built on Government policy—it is important to capture the spirit of the community—but we have an opportunity with the Budget that is coming up. Therefore, I urge the Minister to urge the Chancellor to address the issue of business rates, also to look again at planning in his own Department and make sure that communities have a say in their high streets, so that they belong to them and can revive the local economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
We will start the winding-up speeches at half past, and four hon. Members want to speak, so I hope that they will recognise that a bit of self-discipline is required.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I have heard of competition on the high street, but here there seems to be competition between high streets. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on making a persuasive case. I can almost see her on one of those 1930s rail posters, saying “Come to York, to Bishy, and live.”
Were any Member who is here today to stroll down to Westminster station, hop aboard the District line, take the scenic route to Ealing and alight at Ealing Broadway—at Haven Green, where many a scene from the “Carry On” films was made—and then to hop on the E2 bus, they would come to Pitshanger Lane, which won the Great British High Street award for best high street in London. In every shop and retail premises on the lane, there is a letter from the Minister, signed personally by him, congratulating us. I have tried to take some credit for it, but the credit goes to the organisers and the local council, to the Pitshanger Village Traders Association and the three active local councillors—particularly Lynne Murray and David Rodgers—and also to John Martin, from the local estate agents, who has done so much work for it.
The important thing is that a massive change is happening in high streets, before our eyes. Throughout the 1980s barns on the bypass seemed to be the thing. We had planning policy guidance almost encouraging people to move out of the city centre. We had inward-looking malls that did not encourage any interaction. They did not encourage people to walk through but were inward-looking, defensive and negative. They are not fit for purpose any more. Those malls are usually too small—people need bigger retail space—and not specialist enough. What is happening in the high street today is dramatic, and it is almost a case of the Government needing to follow behind the change, which is happening organically. There are many things that the Government can do, which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). I appreciate that I should not refer to him as my hon. Friend, but he is my friend, and I am grateful to him for raising the matter.
There are things that the Government could do to encourage things that are already happening in the high street. High streets are specialised, with more high-end, quality smaller retailers. In my part of the world we have butchers and bakers and the marvellous Pitshanger Bookshop, which has managed to survive despite the depredations of the internet. If the major internet book suppliers paid a little more tax, there might even be a level playing field; but such shops survive. There is also more pedestrianisation, and it would be marvellous if cycling were encouraged. We have a lot of empirical data about high streets and if there is one thing we know about pedestrians and cyclists it is that, although you would not think they would be major purchasers, they are. That is why we need public transport and a different sort of high street. We also need housing on the high street. What is wrong with emulating Pitshanger Lane, and having housing in the high street itself—getting totally away from the inward-looking mall and the barn on the bypass, and into something more organic, structured and accessible, from which it is easier to operate?
I would not be a member of my party were I not to mention in passing the potential horror and devastation that the relaxation of Sunday trading laws could bring. It is an appalling proposal, which I hope all right-minded people will immediately oppose. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) vociferously commenting. When the Sunday trading laws were relaxed at the time of the London Olympics we gained all the empirical evidence needed to show that retail sales declined in and around the area. We could see it happening. Oxford Economics calculates that we will lose 3,000 jobs if we relax Sunday trading.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Association of Convenience Stores carried out a survey of chief executives, and asked how they would use the powers if there was a relaxation: 52% said they would use them to support out-of-town shopping centres as opposed to high streets. Is not that a disgrace and something that highlights the intrinsic danger of the proposals for our high streets?
Stephen Pound
I am grateful for that point, particularly as when the hon. Gentleman was Lord Mayor of Belfast he was a proud champion of the retail sector, in a fairly challenging environment. I entirely agree, and we should perhaps give the Association of Convenience Stores credit for the detailed briefing it has circulated, which provides a great deal of evidence.
The business rates situation will never satisfy everyone. People will always want zero business rates for themselves, and 100%-plus for their competitors. We must calculate on a more subtle, sensitive basis, because at the moment our approach is too broad-brush. Local authorities should have more freedom and a greater ability to encourage people by giving holidays, to help them come into an area. That was brought dramatically home to me in August 2011 when we had riots in west London. How could the local authority and the Government encourage traders to get back on their feet? We did a lot, and to be fair—though it sticks in my craw to say so—the Mayor of London stepped up to the plate. We all came round together on that occasion, with the Mayor’s relief fund, but would not it have been wonderful if the local authority had been able, without suffering a capitation cost, to provide the opportunity for people to go back to the high streets on a rate-free or rate holiday basis?
I have said that the high street is changing; there are premises on the high street nowadays that we would simply not have recognised previously. There are showrooms for online providers, which I never thought I would see. There are places where people can deliver and collect parcels. I am not a great customer for fine clothing but it is quite good to be able to pop into a shop to see what a suit looks like. In my case obviously any suit would be an improvement, but it is good for people to be able to see the goods and not just to have their order whispering through the ether on the internet.
I have a couple of things to ask the Minister. First, I ask him to look at the high street in its totality and not just from the point of view of business rates and charity shops, important as those issues are. Will he consider it from the point of view of transport? The second thing that any trader I talk to on my patch mentions, after business rates, is parking. We must address that issue. I apologise, because I appreciate that York and Fylde have powerful cases, and powerful advocates to make them, but the problem in London is horrendous. Stop and shop schemes and other developments like that are very important. The issue is one on which the Minister, for whom I have a lot of respect, needs to do some cross-departmental work with the Department for Transport, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and various other agencies, to pull things together.
We also need relaxation of the use classes orders. At present, the variation that local authorities have been given has not been effective. Local authorities do not have the ability to use the old classifications they could use before; and the consequence is a proliferation of a particular sort of trader. As the former leader of one of the largest councils in London, Mr Chope, you probably know more about this than I do; however, I understand that there are restrictions on funeral parlours and off-licences, but no general restrictions. Why cannot the local authority have some input into the range, type and style of premises opening on the high street? I have no objection to having 29 cappuccino bars in the high street—but frankly it is 27 too many. I am not sure that we need them. I appreciate that the flinty-eyed, hard-hearted Adam Smith devotees on the Government Benches might say, “Let the market decide”—that is fine, but I think the market can work with the state and the council on this, in everybody’s interest.
I want to see the continuation of what is, in fact, a renaissance of the high street. I want to see that not only on Pitshanger Lane, which is a wonderful place that I would advise anyone to visit, but on Greenford Avenue, Greenford Road and Yeading Lane. I want to see it throughout my constituency and throughout the country, from Fylde to York and everywhere else. To do that, we need the chance to take it seriously.
The renaissance of the high street has not been easy. It is the result of a great deal of work from a lot of dedicated councils and councillors and, above all, local people, local traders and the local community. They need a little bit of help and encouragement. We are looking for a bit of fiscal generosity in the Budget, in order to encourage the people on the high street who are holding the line at the present time and enable them to expand and extend what is, after all, an absolute miracle; it is not only a renaissance. Look at the modern high street: it is a sight to behold. When looking at the modern high street, we must look at it in Ealing.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
In Skelmersdale, we would love a high street. There are plans for a town centre development that currently consist of just one building, yet the owners of that building are fighting tooth and nail to stop the development, despite 90% of the retail spend going outside of Skelmersdale. Does my hon. Friend agree that sometimes the protection of individual interests, as in that case, damages the wider benefits for all residents and the community? The town and its community should come first, and we need extra help to make that happen.
Stephen Pound
If I have learnt one thing in my many, many years in politics, it is to never comment on internal Skelmersdale matters; that has been my watchword. Fortunately, the area is represented by an excellent Member of Parliament, and I have every confidence in my hon. Friend’s analysis.
I will close by making one last request: will the Minister consider the reinstatement of the retail rate relief scheme, which provided relief to all businesses with a rateable value of £50,000 or less? It was a good scheme that everybody supported, and it was very helpful. I thank the Minister for his work, particularly on the Great British High Street competition. He is something of a legend in Pitshanger Lane, and he can have a free cup of coffee in many a premise there, but I ask him to consider the reinstatement of the retail rate relief scheme.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I thank the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) for securing this important debate. I was not going to comment on charity shops, but I thought he made some extremely interesting points on them, some of which I have made in the past.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary small shops group, I regard these issues as very important. The high street plays an important part in the economic, cultural and social make-up of our communities. However, one of the single largest challenges that those on the high street face is the business rates they currently have to pay. That tax is completely out of touch with the economic reality, particularly in places such as Rochdale, where some businesses are paying bills that are three times their rent.
In the 2013 autumn statement, the Chancellor introduced business rate relief for a two-year period between April 2014 and March 2016. For the first year, that provided a discount of up to £1,000, which then increased by an extra £500. The scheme provided some much needed relief to more than 900 businesses in Rochdale, and it has had a tangible positive effect. Without it, some shops would have definitely gone under, and the total relief in Rochdale has been just more than £1 million.
I welcomed that proposal with open arms when it was announced, but it needs to continue. Unfortunately, businesses will be receiving a letter outlining that that support is to stop after 31 March 2016. I believe that that is a big mistake. Many of those benefiting from the relief have used it to invest in their shops and employ more staff. The money does not get diverted through some obscure offshore account; it gets spent in our communities, where it has a direct positive impact.
Rochdale has been leading the way with its own bespoke business rate relief scheme for new start-ups. In the first 12 months, the scheme provided an 80% rate relief. For the next 12 months, new start-ups were given a 50% reduction. Rochdale is now looking to extend the scheme for a third year and roll it out in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes).
The scheme has provided much-needed support for constituents such as Dale Nugent, who runs Rochdale Mobility, a shop selling wheelchairs and mobility scooters for the disabled. Under the scheme, Dale has been paying business rates of just £2,000 a year, on top of his rent. However, that is set to end in March, and with the Government withdrawing their relief support, he will now end up with a business rates bill of £8,000 a year. That could put him out of business. Dale provides a vital service for many disabled people in Rochdale. His customers cannot just pop to Oldham or Bury as easily as other people. He is a good, friendly business owner; his customers like to pop in and have a chat with him, but because of the Government’s failure on business rates, his vital business could be in jeopardy.
The council tax relief scheme only provides a temporary fix and is limited in terms of helping to fill empty shops on key streets. We need a radical reform of the rating system. I support the recommendation from the Association of Convenience Stores that all small businesses should be removed from the business rates system completely. That would have two tangible effects. First, it would allow small businesses to increase their investment in their business, increase growth and thrive in their community. Secondly, it would reduce the current pressures facing the Valuation Office Agency and create a more efficient scheme for business rates collection. I would also like to see the ability for local authorities to vary their rates upwards as well as downwards, which they can do now. They could then, for example, increase rates on out-of-town sites and use that increase to offset rates on the main high street.
The hon. Member for Fylde made a number of important points about charity shops. We are set to see the complete devolution of business rates to local authorities. If local authorities are not given more freedom to set business rates—perhaps increasing them for charity shops or other shops—and to regulate the high street, the devolution is not really fair or adequate in terms of giving local authorities the powers they should have if they have the burden of carrying business rates. That is an important point. Another proposal that I believe would help the high street is reducing the periods between revaluations of business rates, which has already been mentioned. Five years is far too long, and three years might be more appropriate.
Finally, let me finish by saying that I do not agree with relaxing Sunday trading laws at all. There is no cultural, social or economic argument for it.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
I am delighted to be able to speak in this important debate, secured by the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies).
As far as I am concerned, high streets are only going to survive as long as the shopping experience they offer is better than the one offered elsewhere. To me, that experience includes an element of convenience, such as affordable close parking, which hon. Members have mentioned, and a variety of shops within easy walking distance of one another. There is also a social element to the experience, as the cafés, bars and pubs that are also part of our high streets are places where people can meet and relax. The important thing about our high streets is that we get a personal service. We have face-to-face interaction and we get to know our local shopkeepers.
Retail is a competitive business, and it is no business for the weak-hearted. Most independent shops such as the ones in my constituency—in Cockermouth and Maryport, for example—are run on modest finances, and they make their owners a living rather than a fortune because margins and profits are tight. Government policies aimed at supporting and reinvigorating our high streets need to focus on reducing the cost burdens on retailers. We have talked about business rates, but the Government need to increase the opportunities for business owners to invest in and expand their businesses.
The two town centres in my constituency that I would like to talk about briefly are Cockermouth and Maryport. Maryport has a wonderful town centre, with fantastic examples of Georgian and Victorian buildings. It has a lovely harbour and a proud Roman history, and I would like to invite everybody to come to the blues festival held there in the last weekend of July.
Sue Hayman
We certainly are.
Despite all that has happened in recent years, Maryport still struggles. It has some excellent independent shops, but it also has a lot of charity shops, which have been mentioned, and too many empty units to be the thriving centre that it deserves to be.
Last time I was there, a local shopkeeper said to me that she was fed up with people thinking that her shop was a charity shop, because there are too many charity shops in the area where her shop is. Specialist independent shops are the anchor of our high streets and are a key factor in encouraging people to come in and shop there, and that also includes local pharmacies. We have an excellent local pharmacy in Cockermouth called Allison’s, which is really concerned about some of the Government’s proposals on pharmacies, so if that could be taken into consideration, I would be grateful.
We need to look at the significant increase in internet shopping and the impact that that has on our town centres. Town centres can compete by offering the great shopping experience that I have talked about, but internet companies really do need to pay the same taxes, so that they do not have the different profit advantages that they currently have.
Mr Robin Walker
On that point, does the hon. Lady agree that the Government could, in their reform of business rates, alter the balance of the burden between category A high-street retail and warehousing? All those internet companies need warehousing and delivery to get their goods to market, but category A high-street retail currently has a premium, which belongs in the 1960s rather than in the 21st century.
Sue Hayman
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I completely agree.
Cockermouth also has a beautiful high street. It is well known for speciality shops and art galleries, and its tree-lined Main Street has a statue of Lord Mayo, who was formerly the MP—he was later assassinated, so I am hoping that history does not repeat itself.
What would I particularly like the Government to do? The first thing, as we have said, is to make sure that business rates do not discourage small, independent shopkeepers. I was therefore also disappointed, as other hon. Members were, to hear that the retail rate relief scheme is not going to be continued beyond April this year.
Cockermouth chamber of trade and commerce has talked about the business improvement district schemes. It wanted to set one up and looked into it, but were advised by Allerdale borough council that the costs of administration meant that only shops with a rateable value greater than £11,000 would be included. That cut out most of the shops in Cockermouth and meant that it was just not feasible, so it would be good if the Government could look at how smaller independent retailers are able to participate in a BID scheme to help to improve the local shopping experience.
Finally—I will wind up, because I know another hon. Member still wants to speak—I make a plea to the Government about business insurance. I am sure that everyone here is aware that Cockermouth flooded terribly just before Christmas. That was the second time in six years. Main Street was also completely dug up in 2014, mainly to do with the drainage work that was needed following the previous floods, so flooding has had an enormous impact there. Some shopkeepers there have already said that they are not going to re-open, partly because of the stress, but a lot of it is to do with the lack of insurance. Others are privately telling me that they cannot do this again. If we do not sort out insurance for shops in relation to flooding, and particularly for small independent retailers, Cockermouth Main Street as it is now will disappear. That cannot be allowed to happen. It would be a crime, so I urge the Minister, please, to talk to me about this in the future—I would be really appreciative if he did.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Chope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on bringing this important issue to Westminster Hall, and I thank him very much for giving us all an opportunity to participate. This issue affects each and every MP across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It affects my constituents, and we all care about this issue.
This is a very exciting time for my high street in Newtownards. As we speak, workmen are literally outside my office there, digging up the old and bringing in the new, with the new public realm scheme in the town. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has had the opportunity to see that at first hand.
At this stage, I commend the chair of the chamber of trade in Newtownards for her work. She is a lady called Leigh Nelson, whom the hon. Gentleman and I both met. We know the hard work that she puts into the chamber of trade. She employs 16 people in Specsavers. The town of Newtownards is resurgent with growth and there are very few empty shops left now; it is a success story. I understand that the figures show that in the past couple of years, Newtownards town has been one of the busiest towns in the whole of Northern Ireland, and again, that is down to the local, indigenous small and medium-sized enterprises there, such as Wardens, Knotts, Kells and Excel.
Some Members have talked about online shopping, which our high street has adapted to. We have ensured that we have made the changes, and Excel in Newtownards is a supreme example of that. It has a lovely high-street frontage, which attracts many people in, but it has also adapted its business to being online, the work on which is done in the back of the shop and in a warehouse elsewhere. That business came from nothing, but that one shop now has online sales in excess of half a million pounds from across the whole world, from as far away as China, the United States, Hong Kong and Malaysia. That is where the business is going, and it is a tremendous success story.
At the same time in Newtownards, we also have multinationals making up the numbers, and it is not the other way round. Hon. Members have referred to balance, and it is so important to get the balance right in the high street. If the balance is right, multinationals can continue alongside the small shops, which can and should continue. Giving the right support to high streets across the UK will help hard-pushed, home-grown talent to showcase their best on our high streets.
Turning to coffee culture, the hon. Member for Ealing North referred to 27 cappuccino coffee outlets—we do not have 27, but we have a lot more than we used to have. We now have a coffee culture in Newtownards that we did not have before, and there is a coffee culture in many towns. I have often said, as the hon. Gentleman will know, that I wonder how they all survive, but they bring people to the centre of the town—we do not have the weather for it, but if we did, we would be the Riviera of Northern Ireland. We have the coffee culture, however: in the centre of Newtownards, there are something like a dozen coffee shops, whereas at one time, there were perhaps two, so that is an example of how things can be done better.
Many of these matters are devolved, as the Minister will know. We have been involved in the Living Over The Shop scheme. That fantastic scheme enables the shops below to be utilised for their benefit to the high street, and at the same time, encourages people to live above them. We can take action in relation to that to ensure that high streets grow.
Our job is to mitigate all the push factors that are pushing people out of town centres and high streets and to enact support for the high street to get people back again. We have to address the issue of better and more affordable parking, as we have in Newtownards, where we have free parking just off the edge of the town. That attracts people to park and do their shopping, and it costs £1 for five hours, so what is happening there is quite good. Comber, Ballynahinch, Saintfield, Killyleagh and other major towns in the area also have some benefits in that respect as well. We also have to address the unsightly appearance of an empty shop front; that does not bring in any rates and is only part of the problem.
I will quickly touch on Sunday trading, as other hon. Members have. I spoke about this to the Minister beforehand, as I did to the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise last week. A number of Government Members are opposed to the measure as well, so the Government should be wary of bringing forward legislation that will not be universally supported by Members of Parliament in all parts of the House. Next week, we will have the opportunity on, I think, Tuesday—and perhaps Wednesday as well—to debate the matter. Sunday trading will not increase sales on the high street. It will displace trade to large, out-of-town retail parks and shopping centres. The current Sunday trading laws are a valued compromise and are supported by two thirds of the general public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) referred to the fact that 52% of local authority chief executives said that they would help large shopping centres and out-of-town retail centres and supermarkets before high streets. Sixty-four per cent of local authority chief executives are concerned about the confusion that devolution of Sunday trading will cause consumers. This change has been thought of, discussed and deliberated on, but it is not the answer. Do not change the laws on Sunday trading. If the Government do, they will regret it. I say humbly and gently to them that they should not pursue something that they will lose on in the Chamber. If they lose on it in the Chamber, next Tuesday will be their day of reckoning when it comes to this issue.
We are elected by normal, everyday people, and it is normal, everyday people who are affected by this. It is the local butcher, the local baker, the local mum popping into the café before the school run and the local builder popping in for his morning tea. The high street is the hub for communities, and it simply cannot go away. It is up to us and all those in Government, at each and every level, to do everything we can to ensure that the high street not only continues to exist, but comes roaring back like the lion that it is—and indeed, the lion that it could be.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I thank the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) for securing this important debate. It is important to recognise that the Government cannot do everything to fix the high street, but they can help to ensure that the conditions that allow it to flourish are put in place, whether that involves business rates, insurance, transport or encouraging the community to take ownership.
What the hon. Gentleman said about charity shops was interesting, but I do not agree with everything he said. Going into the details of what they are selling and doing might end up being more burdensome. We must be careful to ensure a balance between big national charities, which provide opportunities for volunteering and other jobs, and small, community-based charities, which may also want shops on the high street to sell their wares and produce their products.
I want to talk about some measures that the Scottish Government have put in place to help to support businesses and the high street, and to create conditions for small businesses to flourish. I agree with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that high streets should be at the heart of every community. They are not only a place to shop, but a place to meet where valuable social interaction takes place. I am lucky to have in my constituency not only Glasgow’s amazing and vibrant city centre, but several smaller local high streets, most notably Argyle Street in Finnieston and Victoria Road on the Southside. I also have the High Street, which is the historical old part of Glasgow. I am proud to have located my constituency office just off the High Street, because I firmly believe that we should locate to high streets whenever we can.
The Scottish Government, who have embedded the “town centre first” principle and worked with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on that commitment, have said:
“Government, local authorities, the wider public sector, businesses and communities put the health of town centres at the heart of proportionate and best value decision making, seeking to deliver the best local outcomes regarding investment and de-investment decisions, alignment of policies, targeting of available resources to priority town centre sites, and encouraging vibrancy, equality and diversity.”
That is a significant step, because so many public bodies in our country exist in local areas and can form the anchor of town centre strategies. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said, cycling and pedestrianisation are important to make a greener business community. If people do not have to take cars into town centres and can get to them by public transport or cycling, it is better for everyone because they become greener and more attractive.
The Scottish Government’s approach to our high streets is the town centre action plan from November 2013. It is a long-running strategy and part of what the Government do. Investment has gone into ensuring that action supports the revitalisation of town centres and assists local action—the hon. Member for York Central mentioned this—to support smaller businesses and organisations in the community to do that.
The hon. Member for Ealing North referred to the importance of housing in our town centres. The Scottish Government have set up a £4 million town centre empty homes fund and a £2.75 million town centre housing fund, both of which help local communities to bring life back to town centres. The hon. Member for Fylde may be interested to know that they include Irvine and Ardrossan, which have seen great benefits from those funds, because people have started to come and live there and are therefore using local services. That will have a positive effect in regenerating the towns.
The Scottish Government have also introduced the regeneration capital grant fund, which is significant and has seen great benefits across communities in Scotland. They asked what was wrong with a community and what they could do to support community action and regeneration in the area. In my constituency, the historic Barras market has had investment of £1.4 million, as part of the Calton Barras action plan to bring derelict floor space in the area back into use. Empty shops and buildings in our town centres may become a blight on the area, but Government action to pump-prime and invest in those areas can bring underused places back to life. The Telfer gallery is a great example and is bringing artists’ studios to the heart of the Barras. It is a great opportunity to bring in new people and different types of businesses to improve and enhance what is there already.
The hon. Member for York Central made great mention of the community leading the change in regeneration. In Scotland, we have taken action as part of the town centre action plan to encourage charrettes. The Scottish Government provides up to £20,000 to support charrettes, which are led by community organisations. Most recently, east Pollokshields charrette was led by the local community council and featured a series of workshops on various aspects of community life, housing, facilities, transport, safety, leisure and other community amenities. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Bill Fraser and others on the community council who have driven the change and made it a central part of their plans for the local community. They are leading on this, and it is important that community organisations, individuals and businesses feel that they have a role in changing things, because that is when things works best.
Stephen Pound
I apologise for my southern ignorance, but I am not familiar with “charrette”. Will the hon. Lady explain what it means?
Alison Thewliss
I do not think it is a Scottish word. It is a process by which community organisations come together to discuss their future plans for an area, which then become part of the planning process. The community starts on that and builds it together, which is a positive way of doing things.
Alison Thewliss
It seems to be working quite well. It is fairly new to Scotland, but communities have really embraced it. It needs support from local councils and other people, but it is worth doing.
Hon. Members have stressed the importance of business rates in the mix of encouraging community development. The Scottish Government have also accepted that. The fresh start relief was introduced in 2013 and gives occupiers of shops or offices that have been empty for at least a year a 50% discount on their business rates for 12 months. Other reliefs include new start relief of up to 100% to owners and developers of new build empty properties for up to 18 months to encourage speculative development and investment, and to help to increase the supply of new premises for businesses in communities. These reliefs are provided on top of the small business bonus scheme, which has been excellent in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) mentioned business rates and removing them for small businesses. The small business bonus scheme applies to businesses with a rateable value of £35,000, with a scaled relief system up to £35,000. If the rateable value is under £10,000, no business rates are payable, which is really good for small businesses, particularly in these difficult times, and has been a great success in encouraging small business development. Across Scotland, the small business bonus scheme delivers rate reductions for 100,000 firms, with 46% of rates bills removed or reduced. Councils in Scotland also have the ability to reduce rates through the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, so greater flexibility is provided.
The Scottish Government are moving towards a review of non-domestic rates to make sure we are supporting investment and growth in Scotland. The Scottish Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that town centres and high streets across the country are hubs of innovation, community cohesion and social interaction.
Hon. Members today have referred to opportunities to offer something different for our town centres, not just malls, to which the hon. Member for Ealing North referred. There has to be a range of different things, whether coffee shops in Strangford or jazz festivals in Maryport. Different things are going on in different parts of the country. There are many different opportunities to offer something different from the large malls, with a bit of additional value to make town centres somewhere that people go to and, more importantly, spend money in. The Government have a big role to play in creating the conditions for that to happen.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. It is also a pleasure to be asked to sum up such a good debate and to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who made useful points about what happens in Scotland. I thank the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) for securing this debate. It is important because, after all, we all have town centres, high streets and markets in our constituencies, and they affect us all.
The hon Gentleman referred to the Portas review, which I am very conscious of. I remember my days as a local councillor when we all got excited about applying for funding. There was a lot of competition to be a Portas town. Sadly, the impact of the review seems to have fizzled out, which is a shame. As the hon. Gentleman said, there were 28 recommendations, many of which have yet to be implemented. The important point is that the Portas review was a pilot scheme, and normally one would expect action after a pilot scheme. Mary Portas has expressed her own dissatisfaction. She told The Mail on Sunday last year:
“It seems Government isn’t really serious about getting behind the small businesses on our high streets. I really am very frustrated.”
I share her frustration. It was a good scheme. I would like the Government to pick up on the scheme and address some of her recommendations. She made good points about various things, which, according to the speeches made today, are being done almost despite the Portas review—they are being done independently.
The hon. Gentleman talked about charity shops. I am a little concerned about making charity shops the villain of the piece. I think it is better to have a shop that is occupied rather than a shop standing empty on the high street, and charity shops do serve that purpose.
Mark Menzies
I want it to be clear for the record that I do not think that charity shops are the villain of the piece. My point is that where charities, often large national charities, can use their market position to force out independents and prevent them from entering into lease agreements and so on, because they are always offered 10-year leases, it is an uneven market. Charity shops have a very valuable role to play. I just want local councils to be given the power over classification.
Liz McInnes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which brings us back to the point that local councils need to be given the power to decide what goes in their high streets—a point that nearly everyone who has spoken has made.
Demos did a report in 2013 called “Giving Something Back”. It found that charity shops boosted local businesses and helped to combat unemployment, with more than 80% of the volunteers saying that they were using their shifts to gain retail experience as a path to paid employment. Charity shops also address social isolation. Many staff said that the shops acted as a sort of community centre. Charity shops do have lots of benefits. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on those points. I accept that perhaps it was the wrong choice of words to cast charity shops as the villain of the piece but, as with most things, there are advantages and disadvantages. It is up to councils to provide some balance, and I hope the Government will enable them to do that.
Several hon. Members mentioned the non-renewal of business rate relief. That has been a big issue in the borough of Rochdale—the borough that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). He raised the issue of business rate reliefs. The leader of Rochdale Borough Council, Richard Farnell, has said:
“Almost 1,000 shops in Rochdale will be hit with a £1,500 bill because of the government’s sly move to axe business rate relief for retail premises—sneaked through in the autumn budget.”
That could force several small shops, particularly those already struggling, out of business.
Rochdale, like Cockermouth and York, suffered the floods. Many of the small businesses had only just been set up because of the excellent scheme pioneered by Rochdale Council to reduce business rates for start-ups—many of the shops had not been there very long. People can imagine the demoralisation. I went round the day after the floods, and the shop owners were in tears. They just stood there, surveying their ruined stock. They had been trading for only a few months. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Workington (Sue Hayman), have made the point again and again about Flood Re applying to small businesses. I would appreciate a response from the Minister on those points. In order to keep our high streets viable, it is important to enable businesses to get a reasonable level of insurance against floods.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) gave us a great verbal tour along Pitshanger Lane. He also highlighted the problems of inward-looking shopping malls and out-of-town shopping. I am sure that everyone would agree that those are real issues for the vibrancy and life of our high streets.
I have talked about the business rate relief issue in Rochdale. One innovation by Rochdale Council has been to provide three hours of free parking in the town centre. Again, that was a Portas recommendation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
indicated assent.
Liz McInnes
The Minister agrees with me, which I am pleased about. The point has been made several times that Government cannot dictate to councils how they run their high streets, but they can certainly enable. That could involve giving some assistance to councils and sharing best practice on how to provide free parking without losing out on the funding needed to maintain the car parks. I am sure we could all share best practice in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington talked about the social element of our high streets and town centres. That is an important aspect of the issue. This is not just about shops, but about cafés, pubs and bars. Many comments have been made about coffee shops, but they do provide a focal point, a social hub, where people can meet. We need to recognise the new model of high streets: they are much more than just a retail experience.
I want to touch on Sunday trading. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North made the important point that we had a pilot during the Olympic games, when Sunday trading laws were relaxed. That took business away from small shops and did not increase footfall. The same people were spending the same amount of money, but just over longer hours and in the bigger shops, rather than the smaller shops. I therefore reiterate the warning that tinkering with Sunday trading laws is not the way to revitalise our high streets. The Association of Convenience Stores is against it, 67% of the British public support our current Sunday trading hours, and 91% of shop workers are against any relaxation of the laws. Additionally, it was not in the Conservative party manifesto. I think this is an issue that the Government should hold back on. It will not be a popular move.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who unfortunately has had to leave the Chamber for a meeting, talked about the combination of high street retail and online shopping. Our high streets are constantly changing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North referred to shops becoming showcases for internet shopping. We have to accept that things are changing and we need to modernise. Government policy needs to change to reflect that and we need to give councils the powers to enable our high streets to survive and thrive.
As I said, the impact of internet shopping has been referred to. It was mentioned on the radio this morning that people now have less stuff than they did several years ago. That is due to the digital age and the fact that we do not need so much stuff—we have reached peak stuff. With that in mind, I invite the Minister to respond to what has been a very interesting and lively debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on initiating this important debate. It has been an extremely good debate, and I thank him for bringing this matter to the House, because it provides an important opportunity for me to set out the Government’s vision for the future of our high streets and town centres. I am passionate about our high streets and town centres and how important they are to local communities and local economies. This is a critical moment for our town centres, and I am dedicated to giving local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and local communities access to the tools that they need to transform their local areas.
High streets and town centres play an essential role in facilitating the creation of jobs and nurturing small businesses. In fact, a recent Association of Town and City Management report showed that town centres contribute nearly £600 billion to UK plc each year. The Government have taken significant action to support town centres to drive growth. Since 2010, we have helped to create more than 360 town teams, and given more than £18 million to a number of towns. That is on top of a range of steps including supporting the phenomenally successful “Love your local market” campaign.
We have introduced a package of important financial reliefs for small businesses, such as a £1.4 billion package of small business rates relief. We are now reviewing the future structure of business rates. That all goes hand in hand with reforms on parking and the lifting of planning restrictions to increase flexibility of use on high streets, making it easier for high streets to adapt to the needs of their communities. Additional rights now support click and collect, which has not been the enemy of the high street as all had feared. Rather, research is showing that click and collect is driving people back to the high street.
News shows that high streets across the country have fought back valiantly from the great recession. Recent data show positive footfall trends in most locations, and year-on-year retail sales have increased for 33 consecutive months—the longest period of sustained growth since 2008. According to recent statistics, the national vacancy rate is now at a level not seen since December 2009.
Stephen Pound
On that point, has the Minister done any research on the impact of the relaxation of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, to which he referred in passing? I have not seen any beneficial consequences but I am interested in whether any analysis or work has been done that could be shared with the House.
Mr Jones
I have a number of points to cover but I will say, very quickly, that the relaxation is showing benefits, particularly where redundant offices are being converted for residential use. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that is now an important part of the high street. Areas that do not want to go along with the relaxation of planning regulations can invoke an article 4 direction if they so wish.
I am keen to continue celebrating the passion and commitment found in high streets and town centres up and down the country. We have recently celebrated the success of the Great British High Street competition 2015, and have been bowled over by the quantity and quality of the entrants. This year, applications almost doubled as more than 230 high streets applied. I hope that figure will more than double again for next year’s competition and I am looking forward to seeing lots of entries from across the country.
I hope that a number of hon. Members here will promote their local areas. We have had a healthy spirit of competition in the Chamber today. It is good to see Lancashire against Yorkshire. It is not necessarily the war of the roses but many of our local areas competing, which is healthy. Examples include Bishy Road in York, which was the winner of this year’s competition, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned. By working collaboratively, local traders have turned around an area that was once run down and suffering from chronic vacancies into a community hub where local people now shop, meet their friends and tweet about how great it is to go to the famous street parties. That is great news. As I understand it, the traders are even looking into developing a community app to allow people to browse their shops and see whether their friends are nearby on Bishy Road, which is a fabulous idea.
Public reaction to the Great British High Street awards has been absolutely incredible. Nearly 200,000 people voted in the competition and there were more than 30,000 tweets about it, which shows just how much people value and care for their local high streets.
While there is a lot of good news for high streets, in some places retail spaces that have seen better days remain. The Government cannot and will not rest on their laurels, and I am working hard to develop a range of support to help high streets thrive. I strongly believe that we have reached a crossroads for high streets and town centres. We need to act to make them fit for purpose for today’s consumer.
My vision is for high streets to be vibrant and viable places where people live, shop, use services and spend their leisure time during the day and in the evening. The Government aim to promote mixed high streets with a stronger range of retail and leisure and, crucially, more residential opportunities.
Mr Robin Walker
The Minister is making an excellent and reassuring speech. He mentioned the residential opportunities—the opportunities to live around our high streets. Does he agree that more could be done to support the “living over the shop” agenda, ensuring that we convert more of the empty space above shops into residential accommodation?
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As usual, he makes a pertinent and important point. It is certainly something that I am looking into currently. The Government are helping people to achieve their dream of home ownership as Government-backed schemes have helped more than 200,000 households to buy their homes since 2010. High streets and town centres are great places where many young people may well want to get on the ladder to buy their own homes, and it is an important use of the brownfield sites that many of us have in our constituencies.
I am working with retail leaders and the sector through the future high streets forum to deliver a range of initiatives to support high streets. Together with my co-chair, Simon Roberts of Boots, we will be leading work to help high streets to restructure and become more responsive to today’s consumer. John Walden, the chief executive of Argos, is helping the high streets to digitise and we will be looking at ways to help high streets to learn from the finalists of this year’s Great British High Street competition.
In addition, we are looking at what more we can do to strengthen the influence that business improvement districts have over decision making in our local areas. We have consulted on changes to private parking to encourage people to drive to their local shops without fear of being hit by unfair penalties. I will soon be announcing the outcome of that work.
We are extending Sunday trading hours to help meet the needs of local businesses and communities, and to help them compete as shopping habits change. Online sales continue to grow at a significant rate and we want local retailers to have the flexibility to adjust their hours to enable them to compete.
I do not have time to cover all the points in the debate but I would like to cover some of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde made a pertinent speech in which he mentioned charity shops. Charitable organisations play an important role in all our constituencies and bring in about 200,000 volunteers who work in our communities. I hear what he says about business rates relief for charity shops. The Government have no plans to change that but we are looking carefully at all business rate reliefs. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will report back in the Budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde made an important point about new goods and ensuring that charity retail relief is not abused. He made some sensible comments and there is merit in looking into that.
Hon. Members made a number of points about business rates, and I am sure they have all those comments on the record. The Chancellor will be delivering a Budget shortly and I am sure that the Treasury will have listened intently to today’s debate. The hon. Member for York Central made some important points about Bishy Road including on the importance of strong local leadership, and on local areas creating an identity and offering something that the internet and out-of-town shopping cannot offer. That is important and we all need to understand that local areas need to do that.
A number of other questions were asked and I will, perhaps, write to hon. Members about a number of them. It is quite obvious that this is the latest in a series of debates that shows the importance of high streets and town centres to our local communities. It shows the enthusiasm that hon. Members have for our town centres. I will take away a number of the points raised today because it is a fact that the Government are committed to town centres and high streets, and to looking at ways in which we can help local areas to improve their town centres and high streets for their communities.
Mark Menzies
I thank the Minister for his response.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Rail Services: East Hertfordshire
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rail services in East Hertfordshire.
The railways that serve my constituents encompass six stations and three branches, and they are run by two different companies. We have Govia Thameslink on what we call the Hertford loop, and the West Anglia route is run by Abellio Greater Anglia. All of our rail lines lead in and out of London, so as in most of Hertfordshire and, indeed, west Essex, they run north-south. Since Dr Beeching, we have had little east-west rail provision in Hertfordshire, which matters because it means that our economic links with London are fundamental. We face London, and our households are therefore increasingly reliant on London’s economy to provide work, which is why the quality of rail services matters so much for the people of Hertford and Stortford.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this issue as part of my ongoing campaign to ensure that we get a fair deal for my commuters. Today, I will focus on three principal issues: the reliability of the service and the compensation when things go wrong; the state of the rolling stock; and last, although perhaps most fundamental, the capacity of the system, particularly the need for four-tracking into London. I hope that the Minister will respond positively, as she always does, to the points I raise and the questions I ask.
I will start with punctuality and reliability. For many of my constituents, this has been a really bad year for commuting. It is true that punctuality has recently improved, but for many weeks in the past 12 months we have had periods in which, day after day, simply getting in and out of work has been a struggle. People fail to understand the cumulative impact. Of course it makes it difficult for people simply to do their daily work, but it also has a wider impact on family life and on the wider economy, too. The huge variation in performance, often between neighbouring days, simply makes people feel that this is not a service on which they can realistically rely.
Over the past year I have organised face-to-face meetings with the managing director of one of the rail companies, and I pay credit to Mr Burles from Abellio Greater Anglia for being willing to sit down and deal with the concerns of my commuters and his customers. Although he has accepted blame when his company has got things wrong, he has pointed out, not unreasonably, that 70% of the delays have been due to track or signalling problems, which are of course the responsibility of Network Rail. Although that is true, it is of no comfort to paying passengers from my constituency.
That leads me on to the question of compensation when things go wrong. As part of my campaign for a fair deal, I have lobbied our rail companies to ensure that when trains are delayed, commuters, who have paid up front, must be compensated. I have pressed both companies to make their rules clearer, which they have, and to move to automatic repayments for commuters, as c2c recently did on its lines. At present, both Govia Thameslink and Abellio Greater Anglia offer refunds for delays of 30 minutes or more, but taking into account that total journey times are often only 60 minutes, a 30-minute delay starting point frankly is inadequate, which is why I strongly support the Government’s—indeed the Minister’s—plans for phasing in refunds for delays of 15 minutes or more. When will that rule be introduced, both for Govia Thameslink and for the new Greater Anglia franchise, which starts in October? For example, will the new 15-minute rule be written into any new franchise agreement? I hope my hon. Friend can update us on that point.
There is also the question of how people claim compensation when things go wrong. Compensation should be automatic for regular commuters. They pay their money up front and, given that the rail company already has their financial details, an automatic electronic refund seems both fair and practical. I am delighted that the consumer body Which?, which has its principal base in my constituency, is now also campaigning for change, and I welcome its recent super-complaint to the regulator. Many hon. Members will know that the rail sector has been dragging its feet on this issue, so I hope that when the regulator replies later this month, we will get firm support for change and a positive reaction from the Department. Will the Minister set out the Government’s approach to that point? I appreciate that she cannot tell us what the answer will be, as we do not yet know the question.
The state of rolling stock on our lines is very poor indeed. We have carriages that go back 20 years or more—indeed, on the Hertford loop we have the old 313s that go back to the late 1970s. It is true that both of the current rail companies have invested substantial sums—many millions of pounds—in refurbishing what they inherited, but all too often we daily face clapped-out carriages with broken heating and very bad seating. Of course, looking at the wider infrastructure implications, trains in such condition will break down more often, so we have a cyclical problem. The key is the franchising system, which sets the standards. The length of any franchise tends to determine both the level and the timing of any investment.
Two years ago, I lobbied hard in this Chamber for new rolling stock to be a clear condition of the Great Northern-Thameslink franchise, including the Hertford loop. With that franchise let, I am pleased to see that Govia Thameslink is now committed to £200 million-worth of investment, which will deliver some 25 new climate-controlled, six-carriage units from 2018. That is a welcome improvement. Many of my commuters would say that it is a little overdue, but it is welcome none the less. I make the same point for commuters on my West Anglia route. That franchise is due to be awarded during the summer.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject, on which, certainly in the case of the West Anglia line, we have worked together closely and in united fashion to try to get improvements for our constituents. Does he agree that, although it is true that most of the problems have stemmed from Network Rail’s area of responsibility, failure of the rolling stock has been increasing lately as it is so tired and old? It is crucial not only for reliability that we have new rolling stock on the West Anglia line but that that rolling stock can take advantage of improvements in the rail line speeds that can be achieved. Those improvements cannot be achieved using the existing rolling stock.
Mr Prisk
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows more about the rail system than I have ever begun to understand. He is right that the link between rolling stock and infrastructure is sometimes not represented properly in decision making, with the net result that the paying passenger loses out.
That is why I would look at the invitation to tender documents for the new franchise. The documents do not specify new rolling stock as a precondition. Personally, I wish they did, but, to be fair, the Government have inserted much higher standards for rolling stock than we currently endure—I use that word carefully. From my reading of the tender documents, which I have here, the bidders would find it pretty difficult, if not impossible, not to include rolling stock in order to fulfil the wider franchise aims.
Following on from what my right hon. Friend said, I say to the Minister that, when considering bids, the Government need to ensure that an applicant has a clear commitment, first, to replacing all the existing stock and, secondly, to securing stock of at least the highest current standards. Most importantly, any new rolling stock resulting from the new franchise should come to the West Anglia route rather than go elsewhere in the franchise area or—even more galling—whizz past us on the Stansted Express. I appreciate that the Minister cannot get ahead of herself in the bidding process, but I hope that she will at least acknowledge those points in her remarks and take them away with her when considering any bids that come forth this summer.
Finally, I come to the capacity of the rail system itself. Frankly, the Hertford loop and the West Anglia lines are full to bursting at commuter time. The population is growing locally, as it is in north London, through Hertfordshire and in Cambridge, yet the capacity of the infrastructure, truth be told, is set largely by passenger numbers determined 20 or 30 years ago. As a result, the whole system is at full stretch, which is why, on the league table of the most overcrowded services, our lines—the West Anglia line and the Hertford loop—are at the top of the list of shame. It is also why when a small problem occurs the whole system often grinds to a halt: there is no slack or room for error.
The West Anglia line should have four tracks between Coppermill Junction and Broxbourne. That would double track capacity into London in a key area where many bottlenecks occur, especially at peak time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) and I have been arguing that case for at least five years; we regarded ourselves as lone voices in the debate, but in the last 18 months we have been joined by colleagues from along the line and across the party political divide. We are also now backed by leading business voices, the principal local authorities, the universities and Stansted airport. We have the support of the Mayor of London and Transport for London—a prerequisite for any possibility of a Crossrail 2 development.
I strongly support the Government’s decision to establish a West Anglia taskforce, ably led by my right hon. Friend, who I know is busy preparing the business and financial case for that long-term investment, but I say to the House and to the Minister that as the full benefits of four-tracking are almost certainly some years away, we must also ensure that planned works for the current control period focus on reducing delays and congestion wherever possible. After all, if most delays on the West Anglia line relate to signalling or other infrastructure, we cannot wait until four-tracking is complete to start tackling the problem. Again, I ask the Minister to set out in her response what works are being undertaken by Network Rail over the next few years to improve the reliability of the service on the Hertford loop and the two West Anglia lines. When will those works start to show improvements for my constituency?
Commuters from my constituency pay a lot of money for a service that they all too often find unreliable, unpleasant or just unacceptable. We must ensure that when things go wrong, they are compensated properly and automatically. We must provide them with modern, clean and pleasant carriages in which to travel, and we must invest in key infrastructure to ensure that as demand for the service grows, the system can cope and can deliver people to work and home reliably and promptly. As the awarding of the new franchise for Greater Anglia nears, I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the points that I have raised and respond to the questions that I have asked.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. It is always a pleasure to respond to debates called by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and attended assiduously by our right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), because the arguments are always eloquently made and extremely well informed. I know that both of them have been dedicated for many years to securing the best possible service for their commuting constituents, as am I.
My hon. Friend raised many interesting points, and in the time available I will focus on three of them. On the important issue of compensation, ultimately we all want the same thing: a timely and reliable train service. If we had that, there would be no need for compensation because passengers would not be delayed. We are working hard as a Department and an industry to deliver solutions to the problems he mentioned, particularly failures by Network Rail. He is absolutely right to say that Abellio Greater Anglia has worked extremely hard to solve many of its own internal issues, and of course there are still problems, such as trains breaking down, partly as a result of the ageing fleet, but ultimately everything hinges on the relationship between Network Rail and the operator. We will shortly publish the results of the Nicola Shaw review, which considers some of the fundamental questions about how to join up Network Rail’s activities and those of operators in ways that focus entirely on delivering for both passengers and freight customers. I cannot say more about it, but I look forward to seeing the proposals.
It is important when things do not work that passengers have quick, easy and in many cases automatic access to appropriate compensation. We have some of the most generous compensation schemes in Europe for rail passengers. Through the “delay repay” scheme, we already offer relatively generous levels of compensation: passengers can claim back 50% of their ticket price if they are delayed for 30 minutes or more. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, given that the average journey time from Hertford East to Liverpool Street is only 49 minutes, that is not necessarily particularly helpful for his constituents. We want the system to be even better, which is why we committed in our manifesto—the Chancellor has since confirmed that commitment—to reduce the threshold for compensation from 30 minutes to 15 minutes. I intend to announce the details of the change in the next few months. It is always a commercial negotiation when we deal with the rail industry, and we want to ensure that we secure the right deal for taxpayers.
Given the timing of the franchise competition, to which my hon. Friend referred, that will become an in-franchise change for both Abellio Greater Anglia and Govia Thameslink Railway, which already operates as the franchise holder. It is entirely consistent with what we have done in many cases. We intend to roll out the system right across England, so it will become a relevant negotiation to have with franchise operators.
Of course, we are not standing still on compensation. We made some changes last year to the national conditions of carriage so that passengers can claim compensation in cash instead of rail vouchers. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the industry must do better. I pay tribute to Which?—a fine consumer-focused campaigning organisation. We are considering the responses to the Which? super-complaint and working with Transport Focus to ensure that operators publicise the compensation that they offer, because the data suggest that only 12% of passengers who are entitled to compensation bother to claim it. That is unacceptable. We want to ensure that the offer is widely publicised and available.
My hon. Friend might be interested to know that last week c2c, which runs the franchises into London from the east, introduced a pence per minute automatic delay scheme. If a train is delayed for more than two minutes, passengers will start to receive compensation automatically if they are registered for a c2c smartcard ticket. He will be pleased to know that Abellio Greater Anglia, which is also part of the south-east flexible ticketing programme funded by the Government, will introduce its own smartcard next month. It is expected to launch in Cambridge and then roll out across the network, giving the operator the opportunity to introduce a similar system to c2c’s, so that signed-up smartcard users can receive compensation automatically, without having to do anything about it. I am sure that we all welcome that.
Mr Prisk
The Minister’s comments are encouraging. To return to the advent of the new franchise, she described the 15-minute rule as an in-franchise agreement. Does that mean it will be discussed at the time the franchise is let, or will it be negotiated across that period and perhaps introduced later?
Claire Perry
The proposal is to introduce it across all UK franchises at the same time. We will not wait for franchise renewal to come up; it will be introduced. In some cases, where it cannot be introduced as a franchise commitment, it will be funded by Government. We have funding for that, and we are absolutely determined to do it.
The second issue my hon. Friend spoke about is rolling stock. As he pointed out, many of his constituents travel on trains that date from the 1970s, which was a fine decade for fashion but not necessarily a fine one for train quality. Although those trains are still running reliably, which is a tribute to the way they were made and the way they are maintained, they are the oldest electric rolling stock in the country. As both he and our right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden know, the bidders for the new East Anglia franchise have been challenged to specify a massive improvement in the quality of the trains they will run.
In fact, the way we let franchising now is based on both the financial aspects of the bid and the quality that will be delivered. That quality is referred to as the Q score and the weighting for rolling stock quality has never been higher than in this franchise. It is the most significant weighting that has ever been given to rolling stock and we absolutely expect that bidders will include new rolling stock in their bids. That is because, as has been pointed out, the journey time improvements in particular cannot be achieved with the speeds that the existing rolling stock can achieve.
As always, there is a balance to be struck between taxpayers and fare payers, so rather than specify exactly what bidders should do, we have given them the freedom to deliver what they think will give the best performance for passengers. Having visited the CrossCountry franchise only last week and seen the refurbished class 170 trains, I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that customers often cannot tell whether a train is new or refurbished to 21st century standards, because in either case it will have the appropriate toilet facilities, and brand new seating and lighting. To all intents and purposes, it looks and feels like a brand new train. That quality is what we are looking for bidders to propose, and my expectation is that the bids will include a high concentration of new rolling stock.
We will also for the first time hold the successful bidder to account contractually for the improvements that they propose for the franchise. We are introducing a contractual customer experience regime, with tough penalties if the operator fails to deliver. At the moment, we have lots of feedback and information, but this will be the first time that we have contractualised those customer experience obligations, with financial penalties if the successful bidder fails to deliver.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we will see improvements on Great Northern lines, and his constituents will see those improvements even sooner. The deal that was announced last week to replace the wonderful 1976 trains with 25 new six-car trains will bring benefits in 2018. It is worth mentioning that the deal, which is worth just over £200 million, will create jobs right across the UK supply chain from Poole to Hebburn and provide much-needed capacity. My hon. Friend pointed out the capacity problems on the routes, so we can all welcome the improvement.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the question of what can be done about track capacity. Indeed, he and our right hon. Friend are not lone voices. Our hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) campaigns vigorously on this issue, and support is growing. I am well aware of vocal support for a four-track solution to this long-standing problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford will be aware that it is a difficult problem in terms of the layout of the track and what surrounds it, and in terms of the platforming restrictions at Liverpool Street. However, as time goes on and as the proposals for developments along the Lea valley come to fruition, the economic case that can be made for this work on the track grows ever stronger.
Although there is no four-tracking solution currently on the cards, I remain interested and I am always happy to discuss the subject with my hon. Friend and the broader group of interested people. However, a three-tracking scheme is being delivered in the current period—it will be done by 2019—between Tottenham Hale and Stratford, which will help to relieve some of the capacity squeeze closer to London.
My hon. Friend invited me to specify other works that will be going on. I do not have the details about other works, but I will write to him to let him know what other enhancements and renewals are taking place on his local lines.
Sir Alan Haselhurst
On that point, although I appreciate that the Minister does not have responsibility for airports, there is a problem. Stansted is the only airport in the London system that has sufficient capacity to handle such demand as cannot be satisfied at Gatwick or Heathrow until the Government have decided where an extra runway will be. The problem is that airlines are reluctant to go to Stansted because of the poor quality of the Stansted Express—indeed, trading standards were expressing an interest and wondering whether or not it is right to call it an express, in view of the congestion on the line. Also, that issue has to be reconciled with the ambitions of Transport for London to run a superior Metro service.
Claire Perry
As always, my right hon. Friend makes a very good point. He will be pleased to know that I think my very first ministerial engagement was to go and welcome the launch of the new Stansted Express, which is the new connection going from Cambridge, which will operate with increased frequency compared with the old service. At that time, I visited Stansted airport, where the new operators of the service take a muscular approach to wanting to deliver more flights and are also very vocal about the restrictions of the rail service. I was pleased that Abellio Greater Anglia was able to work with Stansted to deliver a very early morning service from Liverpool Street, because previously people were going to the airport and sleeping there in order to catch their early morning flights. The growth of Stansted and of the whole region is a very strong supporting point for the underlying investment case for improving track capacity outside Liverpool Street.
Such work always requires us to bring together the voices of the local community, the local MPs, the local airports and the developers who would like to benefit, and to consider the social value that the railway network could bring to people locally if it was improved. It is a difficult case to make but it is certainly one that I would be very interested to hear.
Before I conclude, I wanted to point out that some comfort is being provided by the current passenger satisfaction scores that Abellio Greater Anglia is delivering. In the six months between spring 2015 and autumn 2015, passenger satisfaction rose by six percentage points, which I think is among the highest scores that the company has ever achieved. In particular, there have been improvements in areas that the franchise holder can influence: passenger satisfaction was up by 17% with the company’s dealing with delays; by eight percentage points with its provision of information at stations; and by 11% with its provision of information during journeys. What we want is an operator that is very responsive to the needs of its passengers, so that when things go wrong it is absolutely committed to providing information and compensation.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for raising such important matters. I feel that we are on the cusp of a rail renaissance in this country. We have a Government who are committed to spending almost £40 billion during the next five years on improving the rail network, but that money ultimately has to be seen to benefit customers; it will all be wasted if customers do not see and feel the benefit of it.
I am happy that I have been able to set out for my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend some assurances around the introduction of the compensation offer at 15 minutes and around the fact that new trains have already been contracted to run on the Great Northern lines. Also, I confidently expect that the rolling stock offer that bidders on the AGA franchise will put forward will be better than anything that people in the constituencies of both my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend have seen up to now.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Government Funding: North-East
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
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered local government funding in the North East.
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, which I applied for so that I could set out the impact of the local government funding settlement on my constituency and give colleagues from across the north-east the opportunity to make clear to the Minister the consequences for their constituencies of the decisions that he and his colleagues have made.
I welcome the Minister—I am glad that he is here to listen—but I am disappointed. I think it would have been appropriate to have the northern powerhouse Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) here, given his stake in the region. His constituency lies in the north-east so his constituents will also be subject to the effects of the Government’s decisions. It would have been good to have the opportunity to tell him how we feel. However, I notice that the Minister is making notes and I am sure that he is all ears and will take back the clear message that we will be sending via him.
May I just tell the Minister a little about the north-east? If his colleague was here I would obviously not need to do this. We are very proud of the north-east. We love the north-east.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
My mum is from the north-east.
Jenny Chapman
Well, my mum is from Kent but I know bugger all about it. [Laughter.]
I want to convey to the Minister that we are incredibly proud of our region. Everyone who lives in the north-east is proud of it. We have a strong industrial heritage and we have an exciting future ahead of us. We are hard workers. We have a beautiful landscape and a wonderful coastline. We have vibrant cities and world heritage sites. We are keen to see the region progress and grow as we know it can, but that needs the support of a Government who understand the north-east, and I do not think that that is what we have.
Alongside all those wonderful things in the north, we have some challenges. I want to say a few things about ageing, and I know that the Minister might also want to refer to it in his response. Life expectancy is lower for men and women in the north-east than anywhere else in the country. For boys born between 2012 and 2014, life expectancy at birth was highest in the south-east and lowest in the north-east. For girls, it is the same: life expectancy is the highest in London, where they will live until they are 84, and the lowest in the north-east, where they will live only until 81. Men in the north-east who get to 65 can expect to live to 78. My dad did not get to 65: he grew up in South Bank in Middlesbrough—somewhere the Minister’s boss knows well, I think—and he died at 48 from heart disease. Lifestyle absolutely was a factor. For women, life expectancy at 65 is highest in London—they will live another 22 years there—and lowest in the north-east, where they will live only another 20 years.
The strategic review of health inequalities in England post-2010—the Marmot review—concluded that health inequalities stem from avoidable inequalities of income, education and employment, and that they are not inevitable and can be reduced. I think that local authorities have a key role to play in that reduction.
Let me give some examples. According to IPPR North, transport spending in the north-east is £5 per head compared with £2,600 per head in London— 520 times less. There are 33 projects in the pipeline for London and the south-east compared with just three in the north-east. The Government need to look at how they evaluate projects and decide where to invest. Our transport infrastructure, including the quality of rolling stock, in the north-east is clearly not good enough compared with that in other parts of the country.
According to the latest Office for National Statistics report on unemployment by region, it is highest in the north-east at 8.7 %. The largest decrease in UK workforce jobs in the last three months of 2015 was in our region—we lost 26,000 jobs. According to the Department for Education’s “NEET Quarterly Brief”, the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training is highest in the north-east, at 20.1%—that is 59,000 young people. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, average wealth in property and assets is lowest in the north-east, where it is half that in the south-east, and financial wealth is four times greater in the south-east. Those are real issues of inequality and opportunity that we think that local authorities are well placed to assist in addressing.
According to the Department for Education, the north-east and the north-west jointly have the highest rate of looked-after children, at 82 per 100,000. The lowest rate is in outer London, the east and the south-east, so we bear the brunt of that burden too. According to the 2011 census, the day-to-day activities of 22% of people in the north-east are limited by a long-term health problem or disability, compared with 18% for England and Wales—remove Wales and the figure is probably even lower. The census also shows that 11% of people in the north-east provide unpaid care for someone with an illness or a disability—a figure that is higher than the national average—and that the north-east has the highest proportion of socially rented accommodation, at 15%.
The point I am trying to make is about need. The Government do not take sufficient account of the varying degrees of need across the country, and councils serving communities with the highest levels of need are not being supported.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and I congratulate her on securing an important debate. I would hate to pre-empt her, but while she is setting out clear examples of where the figures in the north-east are higher than in the rest of the country, I want to say that one of the most shocking things is this: the Government’s own figures show that councils’ spending power per household between 2010 and 2020 will fall by the highest amount in the north-east—by £465.51 per head, compared with £154.07 in the south-east. My hon. Friend is setting out the picture of why the north-east requires additional spending and those figures stand in stark contrast.
Jenny Chapman
My hon. Friend has just encapsulated my argument, neatly making the point that I am sure all Labour Members present will be making to the Minister. We feel strongly that we could, with the right support and the right collaboration with the Government and our local authorities, make a real difference to those numbers. Things were going in the right direction—that is what we are trying to get across—but we cannot do it on our own. We know that all Governments fiddle with the formulae to suit their political ends—I am not naive about that. We called for the debate because this Government are doing that in such a blatant manner.
In my home town of Darlington, residents are united in their disgust at what the Government are doing to our town. In a borough of some 100,000 people, almost 9,000 have already signed a petition initiated by my trusty local newspaper, The Northern Echo. The petition reads:
“The Northern Echo is calling on the Government to reconsider its funding formula which has led Darlington Borough Council to implement savage spending cuts that threaten the fabric of the town. These cuts affect not only the most vulnerable but will impact on every corner of the borough.”
It is unusual to find a local paper quite so squarely in support of the local council, and how right The Northern Echo is. I am so proud that that historic campaigning title is based in my constituency and is campaigning for fair funding for the north-east. It used to give the Labour Government a hard time, too, but it is completely clear that the decisions that this Government have made are disproportionately and unjustifiably harming the people of the north.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I represent part of the rural area of Darlington borough. Will she explain how unsubtle the funding formula for local government has become? Surrey has received £24 million of the £300 million transitional grant, but Darlington Borough Council is facing cuts of £20 million to £22 million.
Jenny Chapman
It is extraordinary, and the debate on the funding settlement that we had in the main Chamber brought it home to anyone who still thought that the Government were acting fairly. Government Back Benchers were saying, “I was going to vote against this, but now we have got our transitional funding I think I will go through the Lobby with the Minister.” It was completely bare-faced. One might have thought that the Government would be more subtle.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on making such a powerful speech. I am sorry to interrupt it, but I do note that she is unlikely to be interrupted by any Members on the Tory Benches. On the point about the £300 million two-year transitional fund, 83% went to Tory-run councils. As she said, councils such as Darlington and Newcastle are receiving the most vicious cuts. How can that possibly be reconciled with any desire to support and grow a northern powerhouse?
Jenny Chapman
It cannot. The northern powerhouse as a concept is being roundly rubbished across the region. The Minister might like to take that back to his colleague. It is becoming a joke, and it is not a joke that I take any pride in. I want there to be a northern powerhouse. I am proud of my region, and I see its potential. I want a Government who are genuinely prepared to support it, and the northern powerhouse is nothing but a slogan. It is nonsense; it does not mean anything; it is hollow. He needs to take that back to his colleague and come back with a real strategy that works with local people, looks at skills and transport infrastructure, and works properly with combined authorities, rather than just handing them some delegated responsibility without any resources to do anything meaningful that will transform anyone’s life. People are losing faith and what little confidence they ever had in the Government’s intentions to do anything of any purpose in our region.
Phil Wilson
My hon. Friend mentioned transport infrastructure, and she will be aware just as much as I am of the effect that the public transport cuts have had in Darlington borough. Some communities that I represent in the borough, such as Brafferton and Sadberge, no longer have public transport, which is affecting places such as Hurworth, Heighington, Middleton St George and Piercebridge. That just goes to prove that to energise a local community, public transport is necessary for those who cannot afford a car to get to work.
Jenny Chapman
I completely agree. I am aware that while we are meeting here, the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill Committee is also meeting. If the Minister takes one thing away from this debate, I would like him to take this point about buses. The number of people in the north-east who rely on bus services far outweighs those who need a train to commute to work. Their services are being decimated. Councils are no longer in a position to financially subsidise bus routes. The bus companies are under no obligation to provide the services that we so desperately need and communities are being cut off. That is already happening—it has already happened to areas of my borough.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate my hon. Friend raising the issue of buses. Support for bus services is a critical issue in my area. When I go out talking to people, I find older people having to get taxis to hospital or to doctor’s appointments. I find people on the minimum wage having to get taxis to work because they are isolated and cut off. That is in rural areas—yes, those of us on this side of the House have them in our constituencies too.
Jenny Chapman
Although my hon. Friend was being a little tongue in cheek at the end, she makes a very good point. In the debate in the Chamber, we heard many Government Members telling us, “There is rural deprivation, too, don’t you know?” Actually, in the north-east we have many rural areas. I have them just outside my constituency. The county of Durham is predominantly rural. Government Members were being insulting and patronising when they tried to explain to us that they had deprivation in their parts of the country too. The difference between our rural areas and the ones they were talking about is that ours tend to vote Labour.
Let me turn to the dry numbers and their impact—I will be talking about Darlington; other colleagues will talk about their constituencies. The reduction in Government funding in real terms between 2010 and 2020 will be £44 million, in the context of a net budget of £87 million. The provision of statutory services costs £87.5 million. The council has been able to fund £2.5 million of discretionary services a year for the next four years by using all its available revenue balances. Balances that have been wisely saved are now being used to protect front-line services, and what happens after that? That is what I would like to know.
What do the numbers mean in the real world? Darlington is a historic market town. It was the birthplace of the railways. We have got good schools, affordable housing, good rail transport links and a fierce sense of identity. We are proud of where we live. We are innovators. We have developed everything from steam locomotives to story sacks for pre-school kids. We survived the worst of the ’80s Tory Government through a diverse economic base, but these new challenges are not like anything we have previously had to endure.
Darlingtonians are a frugal lot. We like our council tax low and we like our council to make the money stretch as far as possible. Darlington was among the first authorities to share back-office services with another authority. We innovate. The joint project with Stockton cut costs by a third—equal to £15 million over 10 years. Darlington also provides services to other councils, such as Richmondshire, and to academies across the north. The council is soon to provide information and communications technology to Northumberland County Council. It is not just sitting back and waiting for the Government to supply. It is a good, innovative, lean authority. Darlington has only two libraries, and they are both to go. Cockerton will shut entirely, and the historic Crown Street library, which was a gift to the town from the Pease family, will be moved into the town’s only sports centre, the Dolphin Centre. No one knows what will become of the library building. The Dolphin Centre is about to get increasingly busy, as all our children’s centres are to be moved in there as well. It is children who are likely to bear the brunt of the unjust funding decisions.
Charities across the north-east are warning that local government funding cuts are “hacking away”—their words—at services specifically aimed at children. Funding for early-help services in the north-east is expected to be cut by 73%. How short-sighted and stupid can you get? The “Losing in the long run” report, published by Action for Children, the National Children’s Bureau and the Children’s Society, says that children and families will be left without the early support that often stops their problems spiralling out of control.
The services I am talking about include children’s centres, teenage pregnancy support, short breaks for disabled children, information and advice for young people, and family support. Those services, although vital, are not statutory. I find myself hoping that someone will apply for a judicial review to determine exactly what a service for young people and children, or even a library service, should look like. What does the law say a library service really is? Otherwise we will continue to see provision eroded until it resembles the barest skeleton of something that could be described as a service. We are seeing reductions in provision precisely when need is rapidly rising. The Government say they accept the need for early intervention, but they cannot do anything else when the evidence is so strong.
Darlington is also being forced to offer its covered market for sale. I am working with traders to try to find a solution, but that is by no means certain of success. Support for the voluntary sector is going as grants are removed, which means threats to services that are heavily in demand, such as those for older people. My citizens advice bureau is losing out, and the tiny amounts of support for arts and welfare organisations are going. The excellent Gay Advice Darlington will lose, and local charities are fishing in an ever-diminishing pond for donations and grants.
I am working hard to help. I do not want to give the Minister the impression that I am simply standing here wanting somebody else to fix all our problems. I know colleagues will be working hard in their constituencies to assist too. Out of this necessity—who knows?—there might come the invention needed to create new and better, stronger organisations that are less dependent on the council for help. That might be true for some—I am confident that for some it will be—but overall the picture is bleak. Our street cleaning, parks maintenance and grass verge cutting are all provided to the barest minimum standards. My beautiful town is having its heart ripped out, Minister, and the pain is being felt in homes across the borough and the entire region.
To undermine the very organisations capable and responsible for providing such work by gratuitously removing support from authorities with the highest need for it is shameful. The real insult to the people of the north has come in the form of the hideously blatant, politically motivated divvying up of the £300 million emergency funding, which went predominantly to Tory areas. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government offered a ray of hope to local authorities. He told them they would have to make more cuts between now and 2020, on top of those already imposed, but he did at least promise to provide £300 million over the next two years, so that they had a bit more time to make changes.
There is money for Greater London boroughs such as Bromley, which received £4.2 million of transitional support, and some county councils also do all right—Buckinghamshire receives £9.2 million and Oxfordshire gets £9 million—but there is nothing for Darlington, or for Durham, Newcastle, Sunderland, Gateshead, North Tyneside and South Tyneside. Northumberland will receive £600,000 extra, as well as £4.2 million from the rural grant.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The Minister clearly said that that money was granted to Northumberland because of lobbying from his Northumberland MPs. Is she aware that Middlesbrough, Knowsley, Hull, Liverpool and Manchester, the five most deprived councils in the country, have received nothing under the grant, while Hart, Wokingham, Chiltern, Waverley and Elmbridge, the five least deprived, collectively received £5.3 million? The difference is stark.
Jenny Chapman
It is indefensible, as my hon. Friend says. The Minister really needs to reflect on the decisions he has made. While those councils and the residents in those areas will benefit from the additional money, it is the looked-after children and the older people—the people who rely on council services in our region—who pay the price, and that is wrong.
Phil Wilson
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware, but revenue spending per household in Darlington from 2011-12 to 2019-20 will be reduced by £1,642. In Durham the figure is £1,600 and in Gateshead it is nearly £2,000. Does that not prove how brutal and unsubtle the cuts are for the north-east of England, when we compare them with what is happening in the south?
Jenny Chapman
Absolutely it does—I have the same numbers here, which I am happy to give to the Minister.
In a previous debate, the Minister tried to imply that Darlington was getting £2,000 a year extra. If he makes that same claim again, he is completely wrong. I have checked, double-checked and triple-checked with my director of finance, and the Minister is completely wrong. I advise him not to say that again and to ask his officials to get back to the local authorities and find out what the actual numbers are.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
I feel a little embarrassed coming in here when Northumberland is getting £600,000. However, I am told that it will all go to the rural area of Northumberland where two Tory MPs sit.
Jenny Chapman
At least there is some consistency in approach between the Government and their local representatives. This was a straightforward bribe to Tory MPs threatening to vote against the Government’s financial settlement for local authorities and it worked. Members have spoken openly about being persuaded to support the Government’s plans following the receipt of transitional funds. This is the worst kind of pork-barrel politics I have ever seen.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister might start to talk about the wonderful devolution deals that we are about to get in the north-east of England. In the Tees valley, we get £15 million a year for 30 years, whereas Aberdeen gets twice that over half that period. That will not save us, will it?
Jenny Chapman
No, it will not. I really wish the combined authority well, and I will work hard to support it, because we need to make these things work. However, I am not overly optimistic about the impact of that initiative on the outcomes for the people I represent. I do not know how to put this politely, in the phrase that I am looking for, but it is too little, it is peripheral and it is not widely supported in the community. We are having a mayor for a place that, to most people who live in my constituency or my hon. Friends’ constituencies, does not really exist, so we are not putting all our hope in that particular initiative.
The Government have taken support away from areas that need it most and that are least able to make up the shortfall through business rates or council tax increases—areas, most shockingly of all, whose only crime is to be guilty of voting Labour.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on securing this crucial debate.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the provision of good local services can make or break communities. Everybody benefits from good local provision, and many people rely heavily on having access to council services. They can be a civilising force for good: keeping the streets clean, providing a pleasant and safe local environment, helping to spread knowledge and culture through the provision of libraries and arts services, and keeping the vulnerable safe through high-quality and caring adult and children’s services. In my area of the north-east, where economic activity and prosperity are perhaps not as advanced as in other areas, the provision of good local services is needed more than ever. Such provision requires adequate funding for local authorities, but it is fair to say that in this debate and elsewhere the Labour party has demonstrated conclusively that good, adequate funding for local services in the north-east simply is not happening.
Areas of deprivation have suffered more cuts to council funding than more prosperous areas. Inner-London boroughs, metropolitan areas and, yes, councils in the north-east have seen disproportionately harsh cuts. In the last Parliament, Hartlepool Borough Council’s grant was reduced by 40%. In the 2010 index of multiple deprivation, Hartlepool is the 24th most deprived local authority out of 354 areas in Britain. That is an improvement from the IMDs of 2007 and 2004, in which my borough was, respectively, the 23rd and 14th most deprived local authority, but we still have enormous challenges in Hartlepool, as we do elsewhere in the north-east.
Given the austerity programme since 2010 and the severe knocks to the local economy brought on by crises in the oil and gas and steel industries—we had an important debate on the steel industry in the Chamber last night; the Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse could not be bothered to turn up to that either—further deprivation in my borough and elsewhere is inevitable. I see it every day in desperate correspondence from my constituents.
Mr Wright
Yes, but before I do, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she has done for the steel industry. Her area, like mine, has suffered enormous rises in unemployment. In Hartlepool, unemployment is two and a half times the national average; I dread to think what it is in Redcar.
Anna Turley
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s tribute to our area’s fight. Does he share my dismay that although it is nice of the Government to give us £50 million towards retraining and reskilling, that will not even come close to covering the £90 million our local authorities have lost over 10 years? The local authorities would have been in a far stronger position to react to a crisis had the Government not stripped them to the bone.
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about services having been stripped to the bone: there is nothing left to cut. Local authorities can really only consider what they can manage to do and the minimum amount required of them in respect of statutory services.
Along with other local authorities, Hartlepool had a tough deal in the last Parliament, but it is going to get tougher in this one. Hartlepool Borough Council was established when unitary authority status was granted 20 years ago. The coming financial year is set to be the most difficult that the borough has ever faced, with a budget that is £8.274 million less than last year, representing a year-on-year reduction of 19.6%. That reflects the combined impact of a further £4.474 million cut in Government revenue support grant, which is a year-on-year reduction of 19.7%, and the permanent reduction in the rateable value of the nuclear power station—the Minister has heard me discuss this before—which reduces business rates income by £3.8 million year on year, in perpetuity, equating to a reduction of 19.4%. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, to the year 2019-20, Hartlepool faces a combined settlement funding assessment cut of 27%. Every single local authority in the north-east will experience cuts, from 35% in Northumberland to 25% in Sunderland. By the end of this Parliament, Hartlepool, and local authorities in the north-east in general, will have experienced nine consecutive years of funding cuts. That is unprecedented.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned further pressures on health and education, where we have challenges in our region. Will the Minister comment on public health funding budgets, to which further cuts will be made over the next four years? Additional cuts will be phased in at 2% in 2016-17, 2.5% in 2017-18, and 2.6% in 2018-19 and 2019-20. On top of that, from 2017-18 the Government will cut £600 million from the national education services grant, which equates to a cut of 74% over the lifetime of this Parliament. That will have enormous effects on how local authorities can help education provision in the north-east.
From 2017-18, the national schools funding formula will also affect the council’s revenue budget—perhaps not directly, but it will have a negative impact on Hartlepool’s schools and reduce the public funding available in my borough. That will mean that the local authority will have to step up to the plate and try to provide further help, which it cannot provide because it does not have the available resources.
Alex Cunningham
When I head towards my flat in the evening, I see all this tremendous building in London. One of these blocks of flats is 50 storeys high and is probably generating millions of pounds in additional council tax—certainly hundreds of thousands. We would have to build on almost every single square foot of land in Stockton to generate that sort of income, which is a further illustration of how the south has it good in being able to generate cash but we do not.
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour makes an important point about something that I was going to come to. The 100% retention of business rates does not help the north-east and will not help the finances of local authorities in the region. Whereas Westminster City Council, for example, could pave its streets with gold, we in the north-east will suffer enormously as a result of the 100% retention of business rates.
The switching off of the nuclear power station in my constituency for reasons of health and safety, which was quite right, means that my local authority is incredibly vulnerable to the loss of business rates. Given the make-up and structure of the north-east economy, large manufacturing businesses could end up putting local authority finance under further pressure as a result of the lack of help. Nowhere has that been exemplified more than in the closure of the SSI steelworks in Redcar.
Anna Turley
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council has lost £10 million of business rates a year. On top of the impact of the cuts on services, we have lost a huge amount of business rates. If that is how the Government see the future, it is going to be deeply unfair for areas such as ours.
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend is right. Will the Minister respond by telling us how that will be addressed? In theory, the 100% retention of business rates is a good policy, but in practice it will further devastate local authority funding in the north-east. What sort of redistributions or transitionary arrangements will be put in place for areas such as Hartlepool or Redcar to prevent that from happening?
I want the Minister to answer directly one key point. In the previous Parliament, the coalition Government had a policy of council tax freezes. Hartlepool was the only authority in the Tees valley that implemented a frozen council tax regime for five years. Can the Minister confirm that, as a result of Government policy, that is now at an end? Is it now the Government’s formal position to ensure that council tax will go up by 1.9%? With the social care precept adding another 2%, that will mean that, starting from April, council tax payers in Hartlepool and elsewhere will face a rise of 3.9%, which they cannot afford to pay. Is the Government’s policy producing that?
In conclusion, my area has faced devastating cuts to local authority services in the past few years, but we ain’t seen nothing yet given what is going to happen during this Parliament. We are going to see the vulnerable become ever more vulnerable and our potential going unfulfilled and unrealised as a direct result of the gerrymandering in the Government’s policy on council tax funding and allocation. It is a disgrace and the Government should think again to make sure that our areas can thrive.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on securing this important debate. She made an outstanding speech and has given her parliamentary colleagues from throughout the region the opportunity to make the case for our local authorities, which have been hardest hit by the Conservative Government’s spending cuts. She has also given us the chance to lobby the Minister and perhaps bring about the same outcome that we have heard was achieved by the Minister’s Conservative colleagues in Northumberland. If we can secure the same outcome as they did, this will have been a very productive debate indeed. I will not hold my breath, though.
The Prime Minister’s intentions for the north-east are well documented, going well back before the 2010 general election.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the questions the Minister must answer is why none of Durham, Darlington, Hartlepool, Stockton, Sunderland or Newcastle benefited from any of the Government’s rural funding? My constituency covers 300 sq km and the neighbouring constituency in Durham is the same size, yet we got none of the extra rural funding. Given the levels of deprivation, we would like an explanation of why that is the case.
Mrs Hodgson
I hope the Minister will explain. Perhaps the special circumstances are that, unlike Durham, Northumberland has two Conservative MPs. The unfairness speaks for itself.
Alex Cunningham
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is correct in assuming that it is something to do with Tory MPs. We have a Tory MP in Stockton—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton)—and we got nothing.
Mrs Hodgson
That says more about that Minister. His lobbying was obviously not as successful as that of his colleagues in Northumberland.
The Prime Minister is on the record saying, in an interview with Jeremy Paxman before the 2010 election, that the north-east and Northern Ireland are the two areas where his planned public sector cuts would have the greatest impact. True to his word, when he walked into Downing Street in 2010, propped up by the Liberal Democrats, he began implementing some of the deepest and most devastating cuts our region has ever seen. I would hazard that they are even worse than the cuts under Margaret Thatcher, which I never would have thought possible.
Here we are again: councils in some of the poorest parts of the country are having to cut services back to the bare bones. The fat went long ago. In most of our region, especially the coalfield communities, some of which I represent, there was for many years trepidation about what the Conservatives would do if they were ever in power again. It is with no surprise or pleasure that we gather here to point out that the Government have truly lived up to those dire expectations. After six years of belt-tightening, Opposition Members listened with disbelief as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government stood at the Dispatch Box last month and announced a local government settlement of £300 million of transitional funding, 85% of which will benefit Tory councils that have not faced anywhere near the funding cuts meted out to Labour councils. Labour councils are expected to tighten further and add a few notches to an already worn-out belt. If that were not already impossible, it certainly is now.
Not a penny of the funding that was announced is directed at the majority of councils in the north-east, where unemployment is the highest in the country at 8.1% and poverty remains a persistent issue. Some of the poorest communities in the country are paying for 36% of the Government’s austerity measures. Social care is a burgeoning issue for many of them, especially given that the people who use social care will bear 13% of the cuts.
Tomorrow, my local council, Sunderland, will pass its budget for the 2016-17 financial year. It must find £46 million of savings this year and a total of £110 million by the end of this Parliament, on top of the £207 million that it had to find during the last Parliament. That means that the council has a total of £290 million to spend by 2020, compared with the £607 million it had in 2010, before the Conservatives came to power in 2010. That is less than 50% of its pre-2010 budget. That is not trimming, belt-tightening or streamlining; it is an attack—a full-scale assault. So much for the rhetoric of a northern powerhouse. Northern poorhouse, more like.
Of the £290 million of spending power that Sunderland has left, £182 million is reserved for statutory adult social care and children’s services. The remaining £108 million will have to pay for all other services, including waste collection and disposal, libraries, museums, housing, business investment, and sport and leisure. Those wide-ranging services need proper investment to be suitable for public access, but with such a small budget for those services, it is obvious that the council will struggle to maintain the high standard that our local communities deserve and expect.
Significant cuts will also have to be found within the needs-based funding elements, including children’s services. An 8% per annum cut is expected in the early intervention budget on top of the 50% cut to early intervention services since 2010. Children’s services and early intervention are such important areas. If funded correctly, they can mitigate greater costs further down the line by preventing children from becoming adults with multiple issues. The Government’s policy is so short-sighted.
No doubt the Minister will talk about devolving the collection of local business rates. Labour supports that policy in principle, but in practice it will further ingrain unfairness into an already unfair system. He may also talk about the 2% increase in council tax to fund social care as a means for councils to bring in additional funding. For low-tax councils such as Sunderland, such measures will not bring in the funding they require to continue to provide the local services that we rely on. It is estimated that the 2% for social care will bring in only £1.5 million for Sunderland, but our local social care demands are approximately £3 million. Where does the Minister think the additional funding should be found? This is one of the greatest public policy crises that we face in this country. For Sunderland, the prognosis remains bleak for the near future. There is no respite or support on the horizon from the Government.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the ingrained inequalities, which the Government’s policies will deepen. Is she aware that Newcastle City Council estimates that the 2% council tax precept will raise £1.4 million a year, whereas it faces a spending shortfall of £15 million? It is a simple mathematical calculation, and it does not add up.
Mrs Hodgson
I often wonder whether the Government’s calculators and experts stop functioning when it comes to some of these numbers. They seem to have dyscalculia—numerical dyslexia—when working out the sums for the north-east, but they are not troubled by it when working out the sums for the rest of the country.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I apologise for being late, Sir David. I have been chairing the Backbench Business Committee. The 2% rise for social care will raise about £1.4 million in my authority, yet of the £300 million cuts mitigation fund that the Secretary of State established, £300,000 is going to the north-east of England, all of which is going to Northumberland. Some £114 million is going to eight shire counties surrounding London, all of which are Conservative-controlled. No formula can explain the rationale for that.
Mrs Hodgson
The only rationale is political bias. That is what we are trying to highlight. It is obvious what has gone on; the figures speak for themselves. The Secretary of State’s brazen audacity in outlining the cuts at the Dispatch Box last month and the brass-necked nature of that announcement beggar belief. It shows how little the Government care. He knew that it would be seen through, but it did not bother him.
We have heard time and time again about the deep unfairness of the Government’s financing of local authorities in the north-east and other unitary councils across the country, but Ministers still do not understand the impact it will have on the most vulnerable in our communities. It cannot be ignored any longer. I hope that the Minister will heed our words. We are a strong, collective voice from the north-east arguing for fairer funding. I hope he will assure hon. Members present that he will take our concerns back to his Department and the Secretary of State to ensure that he reconsiders the devastating, short-sighted decisions of his Department on our region. I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand—as we have heard, he is a local lad from Middlesbrough. If he does not get it, what hope have we got? The Eton boys in Downing Street never will.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on obtaining the debate.
There was a time when the Conservative party believed in local government, and it had a long tradition of supporting it. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) highlighted the effect that the Thatcher Administration had on our region, but one thing that Margaret Thatcher did not do was devastate local government as the present Government are doing. Many people in my constituency say “They are as bad as Thatcher”. No, they are worse than Thatcher. They do not believe in the state as we do. They take the view that local government should just deliver statutory services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington eloquently outlined, that is what the people of Darlington will end up with—an authority with the ability to deliver just statutory services. Everything else that we have for generations taken for granted that councils should deliver will go by the bye.
What makes it worse is that the Government are in the most blatant way allocating funding to pacify voices within their own party. I am not sure that it will pacify them for long, because I do not know how they will protect the areas in question in the long term, given the reductions that the Government still have in line—a cut of some 56% for the Department for Communities and Local Government. However, at the moment that is clearly what they are doing.
Where, in the core spending and transitional arrangements, are the lowest reductions being made? What are those very deprived areas? They are Surrey, Hampshire, North Yorkshire and Devon. We have a ludicrous situation of North Yorkshire getting a 2.5% increase and Surrey a 1.5% increase in core spending. A 2.5% increase in our core spending in Durham would mean an additional £10 million of funding. On the figures for core spending powers and cuts in 2016-17, Durham will have minus 4.1%, Newcastle minus 4.4% and Sunderland minus 4.3%. Surrey will have a 1% reduction and my favourite place, Wokingham, a 0.4% reduction.
I think it has been the understanding of all Governments, irrespective of political make-up, since the second world war, that need has to be taken into account. The idea that it is possible to equate the health problems and social deprivation of the north-east and, I must say, inner-city areas in parts of some London boroughs and the north-west with pressures in Surrey and Wokingham, is nonsense. In the figures for the final settlement for 2016-17, the core spending per dwelling figure for Durham county council is £1,608; for Surrey it is £1,661. It may be thought that that is not much higher, but no account is taken of the demands of an ageing population in Durham, and its higher unemployment and social care needs. If the district councils in Surrey are taken into account, the core spending per dwelling figure goes up to more than £2,000. I am sorry, but it cannot be right that one of the wealthiest parts of the country is getting more expenditure than some of the most deprived communities.
The rural indicator was a measure that the Government brought in to try to compensate for rurality. There could not be a more rural county than County Durham; but what did it get out of it? Not one penny. I do not object to Northumberland, which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), getting some extra funding, but why did that county get it? It is because it has two Conservative Members of Parliament. We are now in a situation where funding is allocated on the basis of what the local electors decided. The Government are punishing electors in the north-east for voting Labour. We would expect that in a totalitarian dictatorship, not in a democracy such as ours.
Mr Campbell
Could we press the Communities and Local Government Committee to have an inquiry, covering the whole gamut of this issue?
Mr Jones
I would welcome that, but I remind my hon. Friend that this lot do not care. What they did in the previous Parliament shows that. They are small state Conservatives who frankly do not give a damn about the north-east, because it means nothing to them electorally.
One of the biggest needs of, and pressures on, most of our councils is social care. The Government have announced that councils can charge 2% extra on council tax. That will raise a lower amount in Durham than in Surrey, because about 55% of properties in County Durham are in band A. The idea that that is a panacea that will answer the social care issue is not true. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) demonstrated the problems that Newcastle City Council faces, and the situation will be duplicated in all north-east and inner-city councils, which have huge pressures on them.
Ian Mearns
We have done the mapping in my local authority, and if we cut 100% of all the services by 2021—refuse collection, grounds maintenance and everything that councils do—we will still have to make cuts in adult social care and children’s services to balance the books, once revenue support grant has been totally removed and the impact of the localisation of business rates kicks in.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I remind the House that three hon. Ladies still want to speak, as well as the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister who will respond. The debate finishes at 4 o’clock, so I hope that colleagues will bear that in mind.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) makes a pertinent point. We will end up with councils that deliver core statutory services, and even then they will be under pressure.
When the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) was Secretary of State, he argued that somehow we could make the savings by having fewer pot plants in council departments, or by cutting staff numbers. I must tell the Minister that every council in the north-east has made back-office efficiencies. That will not enable them to meet the figures. For example, from 2011 to 2020 Durham will have lost £288 million from its budget. It is ludicrous to think we can make that up. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here; previously he has accused councils of hoarding large balances, but that is a way of diverting attention. I will explain the situation in Durham. It has £220 million in reserves. However, only £30 million of that is actual reserves, in the sense of the 5% that, when I was in local government, local councils needed. The rest is allocated for other things, such as redundancies and things that will take place against a budget of more than £865 million. Let us knock on the head the nonsense that northern councils are awash with large reserves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington demonstrated, they are down to the bone. The other thing is that reserves can be used only once. The Government’s idea about a way of somehow mixing revenue and capital is economically illiterate.
I want to finish on devolution, because we will no doubt get a load of guff from the Minister about it. The devolution being put forward for the north-east is a devolution of responsibilities without the cash to go with it; £30 million is on offer for the north-east so-called mayoral model. If the cuts to public health funding go forward as predicted, Durham alone will lose £20 million a year.
I noticed last week that a Conservative, Mr Jeremy Middleton, announced his candidacy for mayor of the north-east. Strangely, he said:
“I won’t be asking people to vote for me because I’m a Conservative. I’ll be asking them to vote for me because I’m the right man for the job.”
I had a look at his website this morning, and he has also said that through negotiation with Whitehall he will deliver
“a fair financial settlement with similar public funding per head as Scotland”.
I challenge him to state why he has sat quietly for the past six years without saying a single thing about local government finance being butchered in the north-east. He is a friend of the Chancellor, a former Conservative candidate—he thankfully failed in the by-election against my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright)—and has been an apologist for this Government. I ask the people of the north-east to remember that when and if we actually get this ludicrous situation with a mayor.
I am fully supportive of the idea of devolution, but devolution of responsibility without the funding, which is what this is, is not the way forward. Councils in the north-east are facing a crisis and there is only one explanation. It lies with the Government who are protecting their own areas in a party political way while not giving a damn about Labour-voting areas in the north-east of England.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I am having to impose a time limit of three minutes, which is unsatisfactory. I ask colleagues to resist making interventions.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) not only on securing this debate, but on her moving speech that set the scene of the reality of life in north-east.
Due to the Chancellor’s cuts, local government funding will drop by a quarter in real terms by 2020. I will not go through all the figures again, but the Prime Minister’s area of Oxfordshire will see a funding increase, as will Hampshire and Surrey. The disparity in funding between southern Tory areas and northern Labour areas represents the most blatant political manoeuvring that I have seen or read about in the western world. In succeeding to buy off potential Tory rebels with the transitional pot of money for rural areas, the Government are hitting my constituents, and those of my hon. Friends, very hard. Sunderland has had to make savings and reductions totalling £207 million since 2010-11, and it is projected that it will be required to make further reductions totalling £115 million by 2020. That is a total of £322 million over a 10-year period. Given that the council’s gross budget was £784 million in 2010-11, the reductions equate to 26% to date and 41% by 2020 when compared with the starting budget.
The cuts will be exacerbated by two elements of the local government finance settlement. The first is business rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) outlined the reality of the difference in what business rates can raise, and I am still waiting for a Minister to explain to me and my constituents how that will be done in a fair and reasonable manner. The TUC’s Frances O’Grady said that
“by devolving business rates without any national safeguards, regional inequalities will get wider”.
They will. Adult social care is the other area, and it is a massive problem under this regime. Sunderland City Council has lost £207 million from its budget in the past six years and is braced for further cuts of £115 million by 2020.
I wonder what the Minister can say today. I wait with bated breath. The political shenanigans of the budget settlement will bear heavily on the people of the north-east, the people I am proud to represent as a Labour Member, and the people I care about. The Opposition will not let that happen without a fight and without exposing exactly what this Government are doing.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on securing this important debate. Is it not about time that this Government admitted that plans for the so-called northern powerhouse are just empty rhetoric? A recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that 10 of the UK’s most struggling cities are in the north. The Government are driving a greater wedge, not building the promised bridge, between the north and south. Not a single town from the south of England is among those struggling areas.
Council spending power per household has fallen by £74 in the South Tyneside Council area, which is significantly higher than the £43 average fall in spending power across English councils as whole. My council was also one of the eight authorities in the north-east to receive no transitional funding whatsoever, yet the Government have managed to find the money to offer a bribe to MPs representing wealthy southern shires. South Tyneside has suffered a 45% budget cut since 2010.
Many people will know that I was a councillor between 2010 and 2013 before coming to this place. I was a cabinet member on the council and cannot begin to stress how painful it was to sit surrounded by paperwork and job titles and agonise over who may be losing their job or what service might be axed next. I wonder whether the Minister has ever had to stand face-to-face with vulnerable and elderly people and their families and witness the total despair on their faces when they are told that their care package was being cut or that their care home was closing, because I have and I remember it well.
The chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy says that the next few years are going to be “so difficult” and “so tough” that councils will be in total deficit. Is the Government’s final aim to make councils bankrupt? That is the direction in which they are heading. It is the wrong direction. The 2015 index of multiple deprivation shows that South Tyneside’s overall deprivation score rose by just over 10% since 2010, the largest percentage increase of any single area. My constituents in South Shields are proud, competent, hard-working and skilled, but they have been let down by this Government, who just do not understand or care about the issues that the north faces.
The Tories are not devolving real power to our communities with the northern powerhouse initiative; they are delegating cuts. The Chancellor once said that a true powerhouse requires true power, but we know and he knows that if we take away the money, we take away that power.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman). She made a passionate and eloquent speech in the Chamber during the previous debate on this subject, but I think she has excelled herself. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate today.
I was going to set out some of the context and background regarding the north-east but, due the fact that colleagues have done so far more eloquently than I, as well as the time limit, I will not. There are so many great things about the north-east, but I am fed up of having to stand up and wave bleeding stumps and plead about our poverty. People in the north-east have too much dignity and too much going for them for us to do that. The Government have put us in a situation where we have to explain things to them, but they do not understand the challenges we face.
Public services in the north-east should have faced far less substantial cuts than other areas of the country to enable us to tackle the disparities that colleagues have set out, but that is not what we have seen. Instead, the north-east has experienced disproportionately high cuts to local authority budgets. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) described, the impact is most keenly felt in non-statutory services such as young services provision. Redcar and Cleveland has levels of drug and alcohol problems that are higher than the national average and it has double the rate of self-harm. We need preventive services for older people, support for those with disabilities and special educational needs, smoking cessation programmes, enterprise support teams and transport subsidies. All those services are vital in supporting people to live healthy, active lives or to get into work or education.
One of the great things in the region is the strength of our community and voluntary sector, which delves deep into the most deprived communities and gets to the parts that the state so often cannot reach. However, cuts to council budgets have meant that their grants have been slashed—so much for the big society. More vital services are being cut to the bone in the areas of greatest need.
It was clear from the debate on the financial settlement that the Government are not interested in any form of redistributive approach to local government finance that sees money go to where it is most needed. They are not interested in the principle that historically disadvantaged areas need support or at least a level playing field or the principle to which they paid lip service in 2010 that the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden. They are quite content to have a settlement that has seen the 10 most deprived areas facing cuts 18 times higher than the 10 least deprived. They are quite content to be totally shameless by acknowledging that transition money was basically a bung to Tory areas where MPs were threatening revolt—we heard that from the Government’s own MPs during the debate.
Some Government MPs were not quite so honest and tried to claim that some kind of formula lay behind the unfair and unequal distribution of funding, and some that it was because their areas had an ageing or rural population. Let me tell the House about age in the north-east: 17.1% of the north-east’s population is over 65 years old, compared with 16% in the rest of England, so we have a higher proportion of ageing people. The north-east is also well above the national average of people accessing social care: 29% more people access home care services, 41% more access day care and 100% more access short-term residential care. This is heartless, shameless, pork barrel politics, which does a disservice to the Government and this place.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on her brilliant, passionate and humane speech, which illustrated what the cuts decided by the Government mean to the people of her beautiful town, the rest of the north-east and, indeed, the rest of the country.
What is clear from the debate is that the Government have betrayed the north-east. The people of the north-east are decent folk. They are looking simply for fairness, not for favours, but the Government’s approach has been desperately unfair. The north-east has suffered some of the highest cuts in the country, but those communities were offered next to nothing from the transitional relief fund, which the Government made available a few weeks ago.
Here is what happened. A number of Tory MPs representing far wealthier areas than the north-east suddenly realised that their communities would start to feel the same pain that other parts of the country had been suffering for the last five years. People such as the Prime Minister’s mum got up and complained about what the Tory Government were doing, because they saw their services were at risk.
It is worth digging into the term “services”, because what it means is people’s quality of life. It means services such as Sure Start children’s centres, libraries, street cleaning, keeping the street lights on, filling in potholes, fixing pavements, giving young people things to do that keep them from getting into trouble, providing care for older and disabled people, and providing bus services to rural areas whose populations would otherwise be stuck where they live and unable to get out to enjoy their lives or to go to work. That is what services are—real things in real lives.
When some Tory MPs representing wealthier areas realised what was coming their way, the Government decided to buy them off. The Government set up a £300 million fund, but they did not give that money to the areas that had suffered the biggest cuts; they sent it to the areas that had suffered the fewest cuts. The only way the Government can justify their false claim to have helped the hardest hit with that money is to pretend that every single cut that happened before 2015 did not happen—but it did, and people throughout the country know that it did. Eighty-five per cent of the money went to areas run by the Conservatives; barely 5% went to areas run by the Labour party, despite the fact that the Labour areas have far higher levels of deprivation and have suffered far higher levels of cuts over the past five years.
My area of Croydon is, I grant, some way from the north-east. It has had 17 times more cuts than Surrey, but Croydon lost a further £44 million with barely any relief funding. I thought that was appalling, but the north-east has suffered even more. Durham, which had 27 times more cuts than Surrey, got nothing; Sunderland had 36 times more cuts and got nothing; South Tyneside had 37 times more cuts and got nothing; Newcastle had 41 times more cuts and got nothing; and Hartlepool had a swingeing 42 times more cuts than Surrey and got nothing at all. The whole of the north-east got next to nothing out of the settlement—nothing but cuts, cuts and more cuts.
Only weeks before important council elections, the Tories gerrymandered millions of pounds to wealthy areas such as Surrey to buy off dissent from their Back-Bench MPs. I use “gerrymander” advisedly: for the avoidance of doubt, I mean the misuse of public funds to advantage the Tory party. It is as simple as that, and it is a disgrace to our democracy.
I will touch briefly on social care. The Government approach to underfunding social care is to underfund the services and then to localise the blame for the cuts that will inevitably follow for some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Here is how the Government do it: they underfund social care, they hand over responsibility for it to councils, and they tell them to put up council tax by 2% a year, partially to plug the funding gap. That still leaves a £1 billion funding black hole for those services. Earlier, we heard about the case of Newcastle: a 2% council tax rise raises £1.4 million, but the shortfall in funding for these services is £14 million. The Government hope that councils will get the blame for the cuts and council tax hikes that were designed in Downing Street.
Finally, I want to look at council tax rises, because the 2% Osborne tax is not the only thing that will happen. The figures that the Government sent out to councils last month in spreadsheets from the Treasury included the assumption that there would be not only a 2% rise for social care, but a further council tax rise of 1.75% on average every year for the next five years. By 2020 that adds up to a 20% council tax hike. That is the Government’s assumption and what they are planning.
The truth is that we get the worst of all worlds with the Tories: we get cuts in services that people rely on and we get hikes in council tax that hurt the low-paid the most. The Government are damaging every community in the country, but the north-east is among the hardest hit—£24 million of extra funding for Surrey; next to nothing for the north-east of England. Whatever happened to the one nation Tories? The Tories have been too ashamed to show their face in the debate this afternoon, and they should be too ashamed to show their faces anywhere in the north-east.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on securing the debate. It is my pleasure to be able to respond and I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions.
I recognise that councils throughout the country have been fully dedicated to improving local services in a very challenging environment. It was absolutely right that we listened to local authorities and to Members of this House during the local government finance settlement consultation. We have done our utmost to ensure that the settlement is right and fair for all. The distribution of funding has recently been discussed at length in this House, alongside the overall level of resources available to local government. The hon. Lady called today’s debate to discuss local government funding for the north-east, but it is important to place that in the national context of what the Government are working to achieve.
Local authorities account for a quarter of all public spending, so it has always been clear that they would have to play their part in reducing what was the largest deficit in post-war history. Last autumn, the Government’s spending review set out clearly how savings must be made over this Parliament to ensure that we finish the job of eliminating the remaining deficit and what that will mean in terms of overall council funding. In real terms, councils will be required to save 6.7% over the spending review period. At the 2010 spending review, a reduction of 14% was announced, so the pace of spending reductions has slowed significantly for this Parliament, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has acknowledged.
In cash terms, when we look at the overall core resources available to local government in the finance settlement, core spending power is virtually unchanged over the spending review period. Councils will receive £44.5 billion in 2015-16 and £44.3 billion in 2019-20. Furthermore, we have tried to be as fair in regard to distribution as possible, making reasonable assumptions that understate the maximum resources available to councils. For example, in line with the Office for Budget Responsibility, we assume that council tax will increase with inflation, not by the referendum threshold of 2%. If we had assumed the maximum figure, more than a quarter of a billion pounds extra in resources would have been available. We have been clear: yes, further savings are required, and councils have recognised that, but we have taken important steps to help councils make those savings.
Mr Kevan Jones
I do not know what colour the sky is in the Minister’s world. What is fair about north-east councils—Durham, Newcastle and others in the figures I read out—having 4% cuts in their budgets this year when Surrey has less than a 1% cut and Wokingham’s cut is even less than that? How can that be fair, given the demands on services faced by Durham compared with places such as Surrey? Is it just a coincidence that 85% of the councils who gain from his transitional arrangements happen to have Tory MPs?
Mr Marcus Jones
The average spending power per dwelling for the 10% most deprived authorities is about 23% more than for the 10% least deprived authorities in this coming year. Opposition Members have mentioned several times an assertion about the transitional grant. The grant was based firmly on the local government finance settlement, the consultation we undertook and the responses from the consultation. There were a significant number of responses and a call for some sort of transitional grant to support those areas that had lost the most central Government grant compared with the amount expected based on the old redistribution formula.
Anna Turley
The Minister has been generous with his time, but what does he say to his own MPs who stood up in the Chamber and admitted that they got the money because they threatened to revolt?
Mr Marcus Jones
There are MPs from my party who represent very wealthy areas and others who represent less well-off areas. I say to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that not all of our Members are from Surrey; my party would not have been able to win a general election based on a cohort of MPs from Surrey. MPs in my party come from a wide swathe of the country. The transitional grant was based not on where MPs come from but purely on the response to the local government settlement. It is intended purely to mitigate the most significant changes in funding for the authorities that had the greatest proportion of loss from the revenue support grant.
Ian Mearns
Does the Minister accept that even though the revenue support grant is due to be withdrawn completely, in the meantime the Government have written out any concept of addressing need? Local authorities such as mine in the north-east of England do not have the capacity to raise taxes locally because many of the properties in our area are in the lower bands, so the band D national median is meaningless.
Mr Marcus Jones
That is why generally, as I said, the areas that have been referred to in the debate that are receiving transitional grant had a higher reduction in revenue support grant than areas such as that represented by the hon. Gentleman. He and a number of his colleagues have taken a dim view of the north-east in relation to its ability to move forward as an economy and create business rate revenue and additional council tax.
To take the constituency of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for example, thanks to the business rate retention scheme during 2014-15 there was a 14.6% increase in revenue. To pick up on a point he made, we will move to full business rate retention in 2020, but before that there will be a consultation on how we deal with redistribution. We understand and accept that in some places significantly more business rates are collected than in others.
The approach we have taken in this historic settlement is aimed at supporting those areas with the greatest pressures and providing councils with the certainty they need as we move towards a system of greater devolution. The settlement allocates funding on the basis of the core resources available to local authorities, taking into account councils’ business rates and council tax as well as their revenue support grant. It ensures that councils that deliver the same set of services will receive the same changes in core funding for those services.
Mr Marcus Jones
I will in a moment. That is fair and that fact was recognised by Middlesbrough Council in its response to the consultation on the settlement.
We have also provided councils with unprecedented levels of certainty. Our historic offer of a four-year settlement answers calls from councils to allow them to plan over the long term, giving them the certainty required to create greater efficiencies. That has been welcomed by councils across the country, including those in the north-east such as Durham County Council and Newcastle City Council.
Mr Marcus Jones
I have already given way; I am going to make some progress.
Councils now have the opportunity to smooth their path over four years, using reserves where necessary and if they so wish. Even so, we have not made any assumptions that councils will use reserves in any published figures. Despite giving this opportunity, we have made no assumptions that councils will use their reserves in any published figures.
The settlement also responds to the clear call from all tiers of local Government and from many of my colleagues in the House to recognise the priority and increasing cost of caring for our elderly population. As such, we have made up to £3.5 billion available by 2019-20 for adult social care through a dedicated social care precept of up to 2% a year and the improved better care fund. That is significantly more than the amount asked for by the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. We have proposed that the additional better care fund money should be distributed to complement the new council tax flexibility, so more will go councils that can raise the least from that flexibility. We will, however, consult colleagues in local government on that in due course.
We have also prioritised housing. The new homes bonus was due to come to an end, but it has been a useful contributor to the increase in planning permissions being granted. Payments since its introduction in 2011 total just under £3.4 billion, reflecting more than 700,000 new homes and conversions and more than 100,000 empty properties brought back into use.
Jenny Chapman
On a point of order, Sir David. Is it not convention in Westminster Hall to allow time for the person who secured the debate to reply? I believe it is.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
I was rather hoping that there might be at least 30 seconds for the hon. Lady to reply.
Mr Marcus Jones
I will certainly do that for the hon. Lady; I intended no discourtesy. Finally, in 2016-17 the core spending power per dwelling in the north-east region is £1,820, which is 3.9% higher than the £1,750 figure for the south-east.
Jenny Chapman
When you said 30 seconds, Sir David, I did not think you meant that literally.
That was an obtuse, lacklustre, disembodied reply from a Minister who showed no interest in the concerns we raised. We need to ask the National Audit Office to take a look at this, because the political manoeuvring that has led us to where we are would frankly make even a Liberal Democrat blush. When that is combined with the cuts to fire, police, health and education that our region is experiencing, it is disgraceful.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Lambeth County Court
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the proposed closure of Lambeth County Court.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Lambeth county court serves residents across Lambeth and Southwark. I am pleased to be joined here today by hon. Friends whose constituents will also be deeply impacted by the planned closure of that court and to have the opportunity to raise our concerns about the impact on our constituents, on the staff who work at the court, on the lawyers who represent people there and on a wide range of other public sector staff who regularly attend the court, including housing officers and social workers.
Lambeth county court is the busiest housing court in the country, effectively making it a specialist court, and it is situated in an area with one of the highest concentrations of social housing in the country. In addition to housing possession claims, the other types of work undertaken at Lambeth county court are cases concerning children, domestic violence and money claims. The proposal on which the Government consulted was to close Lambeth county court and move all of its business to Wandsworth county court in Putney. That is almost five miles away as the crow flies, but it is a complicated journey on several buses for residents on low incomes who cannot afford the train or tube. East-west journeys in south London are invariably more difficult than journeys into and out of central London.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and thank the Chair for chairing? For my constituents in Rotherhithe, it will take a minimum of two hours on three different buses just to get to court. The four-hour journey that is potentially being imposed will deter people from attending court and will result in higher appeals.
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I will make the point later in my speech that the impact of the court’s closure on travel time is, indeed, worse than the impact of court closures proposed in many rural areas of the country.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I am proud that my hon. Friend and I both represent Lambeth. This is a very timely debate. On travel, does she agree that it is not just an issue of cost? Many of our young people are living in an environment where it is quite dangerous to travel great distances, with serious youth violence affecting a significant minority. There is often an issue of safety for young people when they are travelling about in our area.
Helen Hayes
Indeed; my hon. Friend makes a valid and valuable point. It is some of our most vulnerable residents across the spectrum, including our young people, who will be most significantly impacted by this decision.
I took the opportunity during the consultation period to speak with lawyers from Lambeth and Southwark who represent residents at Lambeth county court about their concerns about the proposed closure. I am grateful to them for the time they took to do that and to the Minister for meeting me during the consultation to discuss those concerns.
The Minister has listened to some of the concerns raised during the consultation, and as a consequence, the proposed closure of Lambeth county court has changed somewhat, such that housing possession hearings will now move not to Putney but to Camberwell magistrates court. I have brought this matter to the House for debate today because that decision will not now be subject to further consultation; because there are important questions about the decision that need to be answered; and because, ultimately, I am not confident that the revised proposal will address all of the concerns raised about the closure of Lambeth county court.
The first area of concern is the impact of the closure on access to justice and the cost of justice for people who will now have to attend court in Putney rather than Kennington. Many people attending court will now be faced with a significantly longer journey, as my hon. Friends have said, and particularly those on low incomes who cannot afford to travel by train or tube. From parts of Lambeth and Southwark, residents will face a round trip of up to four hours on four different buses each way to get to Putney. That is worse than the impact on travel time of some of the court closures proposed in rural areas.
I know how difficult many of my constituents find it simply to get to other parts of Lambeth and Southwark to access services such as the citizens advice bureau. Indeed, I helped to arrange a CAB outreach service on one of my estates because it was so difficult for residents there to travel to other parts of the borough. My worry with a much longer, more complex journey to court is that many residents simply will not make it at all. The attrition in attendance experienced at family courts following a previous closure programme and the subsequent inefficiencies has been clearly documented and was raised with me only this morning by the borough commander in Lambeth. The consequence is that a theoretical cash saving on paper is translated in reality into either cases being delayed, causing additional expense to the public purse, or residents not having the opportunity to give evidence at their own hearing, therefore denying them access to justice.
The second area of concern is the loss of specialism at Lambeth county court. Lawyers who work in my constituency tell me that one reason the court works comparatively well is that it is effectively a specialist housing court. That specialism extends from the judges to the clerks, and means that cases are dealt with quickly and effectively, given the application of expertise built up over many years. The loss of that specialism at a time when the housing crisis is growing in London, the number of evictions in the private rented sector is growing and the Government are reducing the security of tenure of residents in social housing would, in my view, be a terrible shame.
A third area of concern is the potential impact of the closure on the duty solicitor scheme in Lambeth. The current duty solicitor service is staffed by dedicated legal aid lawyers who have chosen to stay in that area of law as legal aid has been cut, earning very modest pay, in order that they can represent the most vulnerable residents and ensure that those residents receive justice. The lawyers I have spoken to who work within that scheme tell me that the margins are so extremely narrow that the significant additional travel time associated with a move to Putney could easily mean the collapse of the current scheme because it will no longer be viable. I am extremely concerned about what that will mean for residents who have been able to rely on representation from trusted local law centres and legal aid firms for many years and, again, the impact on access to justice.
A fourth area of concern is the impact of the move on the public sector, and particularly the social work services of Lambeth and Southwark. If cases involving children are now to be heard in Putney, social workers who have to go to court will face a trebling of their current journey time. Those are the same social workers who have very heavy case loads and who work to support many vulnerable families who are already stretched and on whom the current cuts to council budgets are taking a heavy toll. I do not believe that the impact of the proposal on that area of the public sector has been considered at all, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point.
A final area of concern about the move to Putney is the heavy reliance in the consultation document on the replacement of physical court facilities with digital services. Of course, there are ways in which new technology can aid the justice system and help to make it more efficient and more transparent. Of course, the use of technology to, for example, avoid the need for victims of crime to come into contact with perpetrators is a good thing.
The consultation document and the Government’s response to the consultation is, however, exceptionally light on detail in that respect. There is no indication of how much of the saving the Government will make from the sale of closed courts and tribunals will be reinvested in new technology. There is no articulation of the services that people should expect to see in their local court. There is no modelling of the anticipated impact of investment in new technology on the Courts and Tribunals Service, and there is no immediate action plan for urgent investment to ensure that technology is in place wherever possible to immediately mitigate the impacts of the closures. Without a detailed plan of action, the statements made about the use of technology are simply warm words.
I turn now to some of my questions about the proposal to move housing possession hearings to Camberwell magistrates court rather than to Putney, which was made in response to the representations made during the consultation process. Although I very much welcome the fact that the Minister has listened and responded to the concerns that have been raised, very little detail has been set out about how exactly the proposal will work. I recently met a number of lawyers from Lambeth Law Centre who confirmed my view that the devil will be in the detail on this proposal, so I ask the Minister today whether he can provide some of that detail.
Camberwell magistrates court is already very busy. It is on a constrained site, and it is not clear how Camberwell will physically be able to accommodate additional housing possession hearings on top of the current volume of cases that are heard there.
Neil Coyle
I think the words I was looking for before were “It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,” Mr Gray—I got that wrong earlier.
My hon. Friend is talking about the assessment that was made of Camberwell. In her discussions with the legal professionals in Southwark and Lambeth, did they also express concern that the assessment of Lambeth’s use was inaccurate? It was undertaken at a time when at least one judge was away and it did not take into account all the rooms that are used in preparation for court hearings.
Helen Hayes
Concerns have absolutely been raised that the figures used to underpin the consultation relating to usage levels at Lambeth county court were not, in fact, accurate at all.
On the move to Camberwell, it is not clear whether the administrative functions of Lambeth county court in relation to housing possession cases will now be based at Camberwell magistrates court, or whether they will move to Putney and only possession hearings will take place at Camberwell. If the administrative functions move to Putney, there is concern that some vulnerable residents facing eviction will still have to travel to Putney to initiate administrative processes that require attendance in person, such as applying for a stay of eviction. If the administrative functions move to Camberwell, it is imperative that Camberwell does not become overloaded. We know what overloaded courts look like: everyone I have met who has had any experience of the Central London county court since it moved to the royal courts of justice describes it as being like the Chancery Court in Dickens’ novel, “Bleak House”, such are the delays and inefficiencies there.
The detail is important here, and I ask the Minister to respond to the following points in his reply: how many judges will move to Camberwell? How many hearings will transfer to Camberwell? What physical space will be made available at Camberwell? Where will the judges at Camberwell be based when they are not sitting in hearings?
Finally, there is concern that even with housing possession hearings staying closer to the site of the current Lambeth county court, moving the remaining functions to Putney will mean that many vulnerable residents—victims of domestic violence, parents attending custody hearings, residents who are in financial difficulties—will have to travel a long distance on a complicated public transport route to access the justice that they deserve.
I come back to where I began. Lambeth county court is the busiest housing court in the country. Those who deal with it on a regular basis report that it works well in respect of housing and the other work that takes place there. Although there may be theoretical short-term savings to be achieved from its closure, there are very great risks that, as a consequence, justice will become less efficient and less easy to access, particularly for vulnerable residents on low incomes. The consequence of that will only be additional costs to the public sector in the long term.
I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to the concerns that I and my hon. Friends have raised. Fundamentally, I believe that this closure will have disastrous consequences for my constituents, and I urge him to reconsider it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
May I say what a pleasure it is, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray? I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate—we have met about the matter—and I take the opportunity to put on record that she is an extraordinarily diligent and conscientious Member of Parliament who has spoken up very effectively for her constituents in the short time that she has been an MP. I am pleased to see that we also have the hon. Members for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) here today, because both of them have written to me and we have corresponded on this issue.
It is absolutely clear from today’s debate that the hon. Lady cares deeply about our courts and the delivery of justice. I want to assure her that I do, too. Before I speak about Lambeth county court, I will mention some general points. The consultation that we have just concluded ran last year and had more than 2,100 responses, all of which were carefully reviewed and analysed. I care about reforming our courts—about moving from places that have changed little since Victorian times to a modern, responsive and flexible system fit for the 21st century.
Neil Coyle
I echo the Minister’s kind words about my colleagues. I am sure that many of those respondents contacted the Minister and the Department to demonstrate their commitment to justice and modernising justice, but how many of the 2,100 responses agreed that it was sensible to close the court?
Mr Vara
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise number regarding the 2,100 responses that we received, but it is fair to say that a number of them objected to closures. As I said, we carefully looked at all the responses that were given. If he gives me some time, I will say that we did actually listen to many of the points that were made—if he bears with me, I will come to that.
Despite the best efforts of our staff and the judiciary, the infrastructure that supports the administration of the courts and tribunals is inefficient and disjointed. It uses technology that is now decades old. We offer very few services online and rely on paper forms. We key in data and pass bundles of documents between agencies. When we need to take payment, we can often only accept cash or cheques. We convene physical hearings to discuss matters of process. We need to end the old-fashioned ways of working that create inefficiencies and which make it hard for the public to access justice.
That is why the Government have a significant reform programme in which there will be an investment of some £700 million over the next four years. That will transform the experience of everyone who comes into contact with the courts and tribunals. New services and new, more joined-up ways of working across the justice system will require a modern infrastructure to support them. The reforms will increase access to justice by making it swifter, easier and more efficient.
To achieve those benefits, however, we must make difficult decisions, and deciding to close a court is undoubtedly one of the most difficult. I want to emphasise that we have listened to the responses to the consultation. We have retained four courts and in one further case, we have retained one of the jurisdictions along with the building following the responses that we received. In 22 courts, we have modified the proposal in some way to reduce the impact of the closure on court users—indeed, Lambeth is one of those courts, and I will refer to specific points on that shortly.
In the case of Lambeth county court, the court is poorly used; it is only used for around 40% of its available sitting time. The building is in need of considerable maintenance, including the replacement of air conditioning, lighting and aspects of the heating and hot water system. In many respects, it is simply not fit for purpose as a modern and flexible court building.
As the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood mentioned in her speech, she and I had a meeting—I thought it was very productive—following which we were able to engage in conversation with my officials and she was able to liaise with the local council, Southwark council, and there was a very productive dialogue. Unfortunately, after Southwark council had carried out a feasibility study, it came to the conclusion that county court work could not be transferred to its premises, which we were open to considering. I am, however, pleased that following the representations that she and others made, and recognising the enormous number of housing possession cases that are at Lambeth county court, we have managed to shift the work two miles down the road to Camberwell Green magistrates court. I think that is not unreasonable, in that we have listened, and I would like to think that two miles is not a huge distance.
I understand that the closure of a court has a very real impact on the court’s users, staff and judiciary, but I want to make it clear that in England and Wales, the closure of 86 courts will only reduce the proportion of citizens who will be able to reach their nearest civil or family court within an hour by car by 1% and by public transport by 5%. It is also worth pointing out that the majority of the population will never have to attend a court, and for those who do, it is likely to be a rare occurrence.
The issue of access to justice featured prominently in the hon. Lady’s speech. Being able to access courts and tribunals when required is, of course, essential, but effective access to justice is not defined simply by the proximity to a court or tribunal building. It should be defined by how easy it is for court users to access the service they need, however they choose to do that. We want to take advantage of the choice and flexibility that digital technology offers. We will move towards a system in which face-to-face hearings are required only for sensitive and complex cases. Online plea, claims and evidence systems with much wider adoption of video conferencing into court will reduce the need for people to travel to court.
Helen Hayes
It is not clear to me what the timescale is for the investment of £700 million in new technology, or whether there will be a time lag following the closure of Lambeth county court, the move to Wandsworth and the introduction of the advantages that new technology may be able to bring. Will the Minister set out the timescale and process is a little more detail?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady raises a good point. She will appreciate that I cannot, off the cuff, give her the timetable for Lambeth court, but I can say that it is clearly very important that there is synchronisation between the closure, the transfer of work and the new digital process coming in. Otherwise, there will be an extraordinarily chaotic justice system, which is the last thing any of us want. I assure her that we will be working at pace to ensure the modernisation will work alongside any closures and transfers. She was right to raise the point and I hope I have given her some comfort.
It cannot be right that people are able to transact important aspects of their lives online—for example, completing their tax returns or doing bank transactions—but when interacting with the court having to revert to paper forms and photocopying evidence. I am keenly aware that many people who encounter our justice system do so when they are at their most vulnerable. They may be a victim or witness in a criminal case, or individuals, businesses and families trying to resolve disputes. They may have been recently bereaved or experienced family problems. Whatever the circumstances we need to make better use of technology to provide them with easier access to a more responsive system. This will benefit vulnerable users, with swifter processes and more proportionate services in many cases, which will reduce the need for potentially stressful attendances at court.
Indeed, we have a duty to offer more convenient, less intimidating ways for citizens to interact with the justice system while maintaining the authority of the court for serious cases.
Mr Vara
I am mindful that the hon. Member for Streatham spoke about security and if he wanted to intervene on that, I propose to deal with it now. He raised an important point. At present, we have a system whereby witnesses, victims and defendants can all end up on the same public transport going to the same court. Under the new and reformed court system that we envisage, we hope that evidence can be given from a video conferencing suite, perhaps in a civic building or a local police station. That would be done at an appointed time so the victim and the witness would turn up at a given time. It is likely that that suite would be much closer than the court that is dealing with the case. That must be a better and safer system.
Travel time is mentioned regularly, but given that we are moving to a system with video links, travel times will not be longer and in many cases may be shorter because people will be going to a civic centre or police station to give their evidence. That will reduce cost and time, and will be a lot more convenient.
Mr Umunna
One problem—there are several—is that the Minister cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) a timeframe for the introduction of the technologies. In his answer just now he used words such as “likely” and “may” do this or that. The problem is that the absence of the technology will create all sorts of problems for our constituents.
My second point is about the data that were collected and formed the background to the consultation. Clearly, they were collected when one of the judges was absent so were not reflective of just how busy Lambeth county court is.
Mr Vara
On the data, I assure hon. Members that the decision was based on the correct information. I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, with the best will in the world, consultation on 91 courts requires human beings to put a huge amount of data into documentation. I assure him that the decision was taken on the correct information.
On my use of the words “may” and “will”, the hon. Gentleman should look at our track record. During the consultation, I met the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. Following our meeting, there was instant dialogue between my officials and Southwark council. While the consultation was still proceeding, the council came to the conclusion that it was unable to accommodate what we wanted.
It would be unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman to expect me to give a specific time, date or month. All I can say is that when we are putting in place a £700 million-plus programme of court reform throughout England and Wales, he must take it on trust that we will do our damnedest to make sure everything fits in and is timely and orderly because, if it is not, there will be one massive chaotic justice system, which is the last thing I want.
Neil Coyle
I note the absence of a specific timeframe, which is unfortunate. Perhaps the Minister will write to my hon. Friends about that. Where is the assessment of the new costs to the police and councils of providing space for the video conferencing that the Minister mentioned?
On journey times, can the Minister tell us what percentage of cases he expects members of the public will still have to attend? In my constituency, there is a growing number of controlled parking zones. Thousands of people are not allowed to own a car where they live so a massive number of people will still be expected to use public transport and, as I have said, a round trip from Rotherhithe in the rush hour will take around four hours.
Mr Vara
I am mindful that I have about two and a half minutes and I am keen for the hon. Lady to have a few minutes to sum up.
In response to the hon. Gentleman, 20 years ago it was unthinkable that people would be accessing banking services from the comfort of their kitchen table or their sitting room. They did not know they would be able to access the Inland Revenue and file their tax return from the comfort of their home. It is important to recognise that proximity to justice does not mean being in a physical building called a court. We already have online transactions taking place. We will do our best to ensure that the £700 million-plus programme works apace and that we deliver the service that we want for a 21st-century justice system that is fit for purpose.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this debate and I hope I have given her some comfort. I conclude by saying that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our court system and that is precisely what we seek to do.
Helen Hayes
I thank the Minister for his response and for taking the time to respond in detail. On video links, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) suggested, there is serious concern about the context in which police stations are closing. I met one of my borough commanders this morning who said Brixton police station is full and there is no capacity. I am not sure the Government have a plan for that. Southwark and Camberwell councils are rationalising a number of their premises, which is probably why they have difficulties in accommodating the Court Service. It is not clear that facilities for video links will be available.
Helen Hayes
My point is about the absence of a detailed plan in the context of a very big decision. The Minister has not responded to my detailed questions about the way in which provision will work at Camberwell and I would be grateful for a written response.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the justice system. At the moment, it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity without a plan.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
The hon. Lady may want a lifetime opportunity, but I am afraid she has run out of time.
Question put and agreed to.
Road Routes to the South-West
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the upgrading of road routes into the South West.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am very grateful that this Transport Minister is here today. Looking round the Chamber, I can say with confidence that many hon. Members will agree with me when I say that I do not believe that the south-west has had the greatest bite of the cherry and the greatest funding in relation to roads and infrastructure. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has travelled through the west country and shares our concerns. All I hope is that he has his chequebook with him this afternoon—we will see the colour of his money later, we hope.
The whole idea of this debate is to ensure that we deal with the roads going through the west country. There are particular roads that hon. Members will want to promote. I will be considering in particular the A303 from Ilminster through to Honiton. I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have put forward for dualling the A303 right the way past Stonehenge—indeed, under Stonehenge—and right the way through to Ilminster, and then dualling the A358 from Ilminster to the M5. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) is not here, but she would want me to say how much she welcomes what is happening with the A358. I am not here to complain about any of the roads that the Government have in place; I am here to say that we need a second arterial route into the west country. Just as we need a second railway line, we need a second road. Taking all the traffic on to the M5 at Taunton may not be the best idea if we have a problem on the M5, so having a second arterial route to Exeter, to the airport, is essential.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes the valid point that we need railways—we need two lines—and we certainly need a very strong route through. Does he agree that the Government should be in favour of that? We need economic growth in the south-west, and without that infrastructure we will not achieve it.
Neil Parish
I could not agree more. Doing the figures, we reckon that these infrastructure improvements could deliver about £40 billion to the west country, so we are talking about very big money. There are also a great number of visitors coming to see us, and we want to ensure that they can get there by rail, by road and even on their bicycles if they want to. We want them to come to the west country. There are many hon. Members present from Cornwall. To get to Cornwall, people need to travel through Devon, Somerset and Wiltshire, so that is key.
The west country is definitely a honeypot as far as tourism is concerned. If the A303/A30 through to Honiton and Exeter is dualled virtually all the way, most of the London traffic will come that way. Then there is the north and the northern powerhouse that the Chancellor is so keen to have and that I very much support. When people from the northern powerhouse and the midlands come down, they will naturally come down the M5 and into the west country from that direction. What I am talking about is a natural way of keeping that traffic going and keeping it separated. I go back to the point I made earlier. Let us say that we take all the traffic on to the M5 and there is a problem after Wellington. A caravan may tip over going down the hill, which is not an unforeseen happening. With what I am talking about, we will not only be able to get traffic on to the motorway. If there is a blockage on the motorway, then with the A358 dualled, we will get a lot more traffic back up the A358, going into Honiton. That is where I believe we need to do the second route in and have it dualled all the way through and upgraded through the Blackdown hills.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) will make a case for upgrading the north Devon link road, and I very much support that. I am not here to destroy other people’s ambitions; we want to ensure that we have as much investment for the west country as we possibly can.
I agree with the Chancellor—the architect of our long-term economic plan. As he rightly says, the south-west has not enjoyed as much attention as the north of England, but that does not excuse any neglect of the south-west. I agree that his long-term economic plan for the south-west is good, but we want to see the colour of his money. In particular, I believe that transforming connections between the south-west and the rest of the country is the right thing to do, as well as improving connections within the south-west. From Somerset to Devon to Dorset, these infrastructure upgrades are essential.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am very much enjoying my hon. Friend’s comments. Does he agree that the Kingskerswell bypass, which has just opened and connects my constituency to the rest of the road network by dual carriageway for the first time, is a perfect example of the benefits that can be delivered by investment in our infrastructure, with thousands of jobs and new homes predicted to be generated just by that investment?
Neil Parish
I could not agree more. The Kingskerswell bypass brings people into Torbay. It brings them from the A380, and if they go back on that road, they have the A380, the A38 and the A30 when they get to Exeter, so they have a choice of roads. It is ideal to keep the A303 going from Ilminster through to Honiton to ensure that they can make that connection, so I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He mentioned Dorset, and Dorset in the south-west often feels unfairly left out. Does he agree that it is not just about individual counties such as Dorset and Wiltshire working together? We have to look across the whole of the south-west and then, as he says, into individual counties. For example, it is vital that we get north-south roads built out of the important port of Poole and put that infrastructure in place.
Neil Parish
I again agree, because in a previous life I had the terrible job of being one of the Members of the European Parliament for the whole of the south-west, which includes Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Dorset, as well as all the other counties in the west country. If we take the A350 and other roads, getting north to south through Dorset, from Poole to Bristol, is an absolute nightmare. It is about ensuring that we have roads from those ports through to our major cities and our major road links, so I am very supportive of what my hon. Friend says.
In the course of this Parliament, we have a real opportunity in the south-west to consolidate and invest in our infrastructure. A number of roads need upgrading, and I know that my hon. Friends here today will be talking about the various projects—we have heard some comments already, but there will be more—all of which will play an important part in upgrading and improving our local economy in the south-west and our long-term economic plan. I think at least one of those investments should be upgrading the A303/A30/A358. The A303/A30 is a vital arterial route into the west from London, as I have mentioned. Those upgrades will also help as traffic calming measures. Currently, the A303/A30/A358 is one of the most congested roads in the south-west, and in the summer months road usage increases by up to 50%. If the Minister ran down through the A30/A303 today, he would probably find little problem with it, but that bears no resemblance at all to what it is like in the height of summer. Do not forget that we want people to come to the west country to spend their money and enjoy the great scenery.
The A358 runs through the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, and acts as a link between the A303, the A30 and the M5. She has campaigned long and hard for the upgrade of the A358, which runs just outside the Blackdown hills area of outstanding natural beauty—an area that I share with her. About 80% of local residents and businesses in the Blackdown hills AONB believe that road congestion is an issue and 97% of all residents support road improvements in the hills. The Blackdown hills AONB has made it clear that it supports an upgrade to the A303/A30, but that those upgrades should be carried out with sensitivity and in ways that are compatible with conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Blackdown hills.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need clarity about the timetable from the Minister, so that all our constituents across the south-west can be confident that the Government’s commitment will be delivered during the next few years before the next election?
Neil Parish
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. We have talked about this for a great deal of time and we have put the money on the table, but people actually want the road built now.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
It is not just about the commitment to doing it; it is about physically seeing some of the work starting. We need some spades in the ground.
Neil Parish
We certainly do. Before I answer my hon. Friend, let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that it is essential to get the tunnel built, but I want to ensure that we start building all parts of the A303/A30. We should not just hold up one part for another. We have to get on with it. To get down to Plymouth, we have to get through a number of counties. Plymouth is very much a driving force for the west country so it is essential that we get not only trains, but good roads to Plymouth.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the subject of getting the choreography right, it is great to do Stonehenge, which is what grabs the national news. However, would my hon. Friend observe that if we fix Stonehenge and merely shunt traffic a little bit further west, into the village of Chicklade, for example—a very real possibility, particularly if the economy takes a nose dive, which economies tend to do from time to time—my constituents will find a whopping great traffic jam landed on their doorstep, which would be an extremely bad thing and do nothing to sort out the problem with the superhighway to the south-west?
Neil Parish
I agree with my hon. Friend. Roads are a little bit like tributaries. If one area is cleared, the water is taken faster into the next area, and the same applies with traffic. Therefore, if we are doing the road, we have to ensure that we dual the road all the way through.
Although the tunnel under Stonehenge is necessary, it is expensive and will take some time. We have other schemes through Chicklade and other places that are not so expensive and can go on at the same time. The previous Government made a mistake: the problem at Stonehenge stopped any help to the rest of the roads. We have to do Stonehenge but we have to do the other parts of the road as well. Should the Minister travel on the A303/A30 now, he will have the good fortune of congested roads so that he can safely admire the natural beauty of the area, but I want him to be able to travel through a little faster so that he can get to his destination when he decides he is going to and is not stuck in hours of traffic jams in the summer.
In the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we deal with air quality. There is no doubt that the more traffic is congested, the more vehicles stay ticking over, and as idling cars give out a lot of pollution, this a problem of pollution as well. If we get people through quicker, Roads Minister, we will improve the environment even more.
Unfortunately, many commuters are not that interested in the surrounding beauty and think that getting to work on time is important. Although a great many tourists come through the area in the summer, we must not forget that a lot of people are still working. They want to get to work and to get goods delivered in their vans and cars.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head of a historical problem, which is that the south-west—I include Dorset in that—has always been seen as a busy holiday destination that can just take the pressure for those months. It is often forgotten that we have a vital and viable series of businesses large and small, the agricultural sector and so on, which need high-quality roads so they can get their goods to and from market and their employees can get to and from work. If we are to see a real strengthening of our south-west economy, roads such as the A350 and the C13 in my constituency all need investment and attention.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. When we improve the major roads, we must ensure that all the links work and get the heavy traffic through. We must ensure that we have good roads for tourists and for those who live in the west country all the time.
Some 58% of people think that road safety is an issue and 53% believe that reliability is an issue, which demonstrates the need for an upgrade due to the public perception of the lack of reliability of the road. That goes back to what I said at the beginning: if people choose a route into the west country and they are absolutely certain they can get along the A303, they will use it; if not, they will go on to the motorway, which will probably be highly congested.
This is not just about public perception. The A303, A30 and A358 have among the highest number of fatalities and personal injury accidents, which underlines that road safety is a clear issue. Of course, road safety is not just an issue along the A303, A30 and A358. I have been working hard with Highways England to come up with a solution for Hunters Lodge junction on the A35, because that route is a real problem. There have been serious accidents and fatalities there next to the turning into Uplyme and Lyme Regis.
Anne Marie Morris
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a safety issue regarding the number of potholes? I remember that in a recent very bad winter, the potholes, even on the M5, were very significant. Given the number of roads we have in the west country—certainly in Devon—we need more money not just for new roads, but for ensuring that the existing roads are properly maintained.
Neil Parish
In fairness, I think that the Government gave a great deal of money for potholes, and the county councils, particularly Devon County Council, worked very hard on the problem. We have to deal with potholes because they cause accidents and damage cars. It is essential that we get that work done but, in fairness to the Government, they did give something like £8 million to Devon to solve the problem of potholes.
I am dealing with Highways England regarding the A35. We are looking for a solution to slow the traffic and make the Hunters Lodge junction safer—we must deal with that. Upgrading the whole corridor of the A303, A30 and A358 would create 21,400 jobs and boost the local economy by some £41.06 billion—a key delivery for the long-term economic plan for the south-west. Other benefits would include £1.9 billion of transport benefits due to reduced journey times and greater resilience.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the long-term economic plan for the south-west, with which the Minister will be familiar. It was delivered 13 months ago, almost to the day, and he very clearly pledged £7.2 billion for wider transport improvements in the south-west, £3 billion of which was for roads. I hope my hon. Friend would agree that today would be a good time to hear an update on how the spending of that £3 billion is going.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend raises a good point. We are keen to hear from the Minister exactly how the spending is going and when we are likely to see diggers arriving to construct the roads, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) said earlier. We look forward to that answer.
Additionally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) reminded me, the A30 is a stretch of road that runs past Exeter airport and that by no means constitutes low noise. He is particularly keen for the concrete motorway to be quietened—I suspect he tried that when the Minister came down the A30. It is definitely dualled, of which I am jealous, but there is an argument about the noise caused by the road. The village of Clyst in the East Devon constituency is hit by the double whammy of noise from the airport and from the roads.
Furthermore, the A30 is the main carriageway for motorists travelling westwards towards the Exeter and East Devon growth point, which is also in the East Devon constituency. The growth point, as my right hon. Friend pointed out to me, includes the brand-new and fast-growing town of Cranbrook, the science park, the business park, Skypark and, as mentioned previously, Exeter airport. The Minister was in Cranbrook just last week for the opening of a new train station, and he will have seen at first hand that improvements to the A30 would be a big boost to the growth point and therefore the wider economic area. The only way to achieve those figures is to upgrade the whole A303/A30—I may possibly have mentioned that before. That second arterial route into the west country would create a natural flow of traffic, as much of the London traffic would be dealt with, thereby creating the sensible and logical division of traffic that we need.
I ask the Minister for assurances that all those projects will be given the go-ahead. Please show the same confidence in the south-west that all of us here today share and recognise. We have been given a brilliant opportunity to develop as part of the long-term economic plan not just for the west country but for the whole country. Will he encourage Highways England to work with Devon County Council on the design of the roads through Honiton and Monkton, all the way through the Blackdown hills to Ilminster? Devon County Council has done a lot of work on that. Finally, we say to the Chancellor: please may we have these funds? They have been promised, and we look forward to seeing them.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I note that at least five hon. Members, perhaps more, are seeking to catch my eye. I intend to call the first Front Bench spokesperson at 10 minutes past 5, which gives 18 minutes between five speakers. An average of three or four minutes each would be courteous to each other.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It is appropriate that a fellow south-west MP should be in the Chair for this important debate, Mr Gray.
Given the time available, I will move quickly to my shopping list for the Minister, but not without first saying that the unveiling of the long-term economic plan for the south-west last year was an important moment in the election campaign, because it clearly demonstrated that a Conservative Government would have the south-west at the heart of their thinking and would recognise that investment in south-west infrastructure had for too long lagged behind other parts of the country. Since the election, we have had an opportunity to debate at some length the problems with our broadband in the region, and the other night we had an excellent debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on the area’s rail infrastructure. Today’s debate on roads is similarly important.
I will briefly focus on two areas, the first being our region’s strategic connections. The M5 is closed too often. Traffic gets south of Bristol and is too often met with a traffic jam that closes the road, which has an impact on the visitor economy not just in Somerset but in Devon and Cornwall. On a Friday evening, many restaurants and campsites are left without their Friday evening’s revenue because people are still stuck in and around Avonmouth on the M5. The A303 and the A358 are clearly important improvements for us to make to take some pressure off the M4-M5 interchange. Those improvements must be made as quickly as possible, but with them must come a traffic management system that goes all the way back to the eastern end of the M4 so that people are advised to take the A303 and A358, if that route is the clearest, when trying to access the south-west. We must also make more effort to connect our road network with our rail and air transport hubs. At the moment, too many of our railway stations and airports are too far removed from decent roads, which also stands in the way of economic development.
My one entirely parochial plea, having spoken about the importance of the A303 and the A358—that is without doubt the most important improvement we must make to our region—is that, locally, there is a challenge in accessing the northern part of Somerset. There is an east-west connection on the M4 corridor. The next proper east-west trunk road is the A303 and the A358 in their current state; there is nothing in between, unless we accept the Bristol southern ring road, but that really serves Bristol’s suburbs, not the county of Somerset, north Somerset or north-east Somerset.
Although my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Ben Howlett) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) are both encouraging improved access off the M4 beyond Bath and down into west Wiltshire and Somerset, we are also looking at improvements from junction 23 of the M5 along the A39 and the A361 to open up eastern Somerset and west Wiltshire from the M5 corridor, too. I plant that in the Minister’s mind, as I will be coming to speak to him about it in due course. It would make a significant difference to access for that part of Somerset, which at the moment runs the risk of becoming a rock in the stream as everything moves around it very quickly on the A303 or the M4/M5. That does no service to my constituency, where there are huge opportunities for a relatively small number of very short road improvements—probably an extra five miles of road. With that, I cede the floor so that others can put their shopping lists on the record, too.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for securing this important debate.
The A30 is the only real route of access to Penzance, which is the best-known town in the UK. It is still a hugely popular tourist destination, and it looks after the whole of west Cornwall. It is the economic centre of my constituency. Although I want to address the concerns about roads and congestion, I do not want to discourage people from booking their holiday in west Cornwall this summer, so please do that.
People who have holidayed in west Cornwall will know that at peak times throughout the year, not just in the summertime, the roads are particularly congested. Good work has been done on the A30 by this Government. We have not seen a lot of investment, but the road is being dualled right down to the edge of my constituency. At the moment, the road continues as a single carriageway right through the last and only village on the A30, Crowlas, where the first set of traffic lights for those travelling from London can be found.
In my constituency I genuinely have the biggest challenge and deserve the greatest rewards, for which I am thankful. We have a single carriageway, and Cornwall Council’s estimate suggests that congestion just on that section of road costs my constituency some £3.1 million a year, so we have a problem. There was a solution, but in 1997, the Labour Government cancelled a shovel-ready project that would have brought the road comfortably into Penzance and have resolved some of the issues that the present Government are now being forced to consider.
I want to see a solution, and I thank the Minister for coming down in August on a very wet day. It only rains one day in the summer, which is when people come on holiday, and it was that particular day. He stood on the edge of the road, and he met the local council and local campaigners. He could see for himself the challenge that we have before us to improve the situation.
I come here with a solution. Since the Minister came to my constituency, I have met Highways England, Cornwall Council and local parish councils, and together we discussed what can be achieved. Cornwall Council has put together a useful piece of work called “The Cornish Expressway,” which is excellent and talks about how the road could be opened up for free movement of traffic down to my neck of the woods. The Government are already doing significant amounts of work around Temple and near Truro to make that become a reality.
As the cars move more freely after the work is done, it will only create a new pinch point in my constituency, making it even more urgent to address the situation. The Cornish expressway will keep traffic moving freely, reduce pollution and boost our economy. As I said, I have met a number of people and brought them around the table. We will do whatever it takes—whatever the Government or Highways England need us to do—to make the case. Our intention is that a well thought out plan will be prepared and included in the road investment strategy 2, for which the Government are currently seeking ideas. I would welcome some indication that such a solution to the A30 in my neck of the woods, enabling it to meet current demand on that section of road, would be welcomed by the Minister. I want to be sure that he will support the hard work that we will put in to free up the economy, reduce pollution and keep traffic moving.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Mr Gray, I can feel you champing at the bit to get involved in this debate; as another Member rightly said, you are a Wiltshire Member of Parliament too. I have three straightforward points to make.
First, the issue of transport connectivity in the south-west and down into the peninsula is absolutely and utterly vital. I have been campaigning on it for the last 15 years, both for 10 years as the candidate, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who was there in the early days, and in the past five years as the Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport.
There are two vital issues. The first is the dualling of the A303. We must ensure, ideally, that it continues through the Blackdown hills as well, because it can take up to four hours, if not five or six, to get all the way from London down to Plymouth. The second is that in 2020, we will commemorate the Mayflower 400, the anniversary of when the Mayflower left Plymouth to found the American colonies. We have an opportunity to use that occasion to hold one of the best trade exhibitions in the country, not dissimilar to what happened during the Olympics. We need decent transport links—road, rail and air. I urge the Government seriously to consider reopening Plymouth airport; I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he will do so. If we do not have those links, we will lose an opportunity beyond all measure.
Finally, although we talk about dualling the A303, the A358 and potentially the road down into the Blackdown hills, the M4-M5 interchange is a nightmare for those of us who come up to London on a Sunday evening or afternoon. Only too often, I find it difficult to work out in my mind’s eye which lane I should end up in, especially if England are playing cricket and I get somewhat taken away by what might be happening in the match. I get rather concerned. As often as not, I find myself going up to Gloucester on the M5, which is a big mistake. That also needs to be looked at and sorted out.
If we do not do something about the issue, we will pay the price. It is the south-west that has delivered the majority for this Government in the House of Commons. It is vital that we do not miss this chance to look after Somerset, Devon, Wiltshire, Dorset and Cornwall. If we do, we will lose an awful lot of opportunities, and will unfortunately leave the issue to the Opposition, who I do not believe are as committed to delivering for us in the west country.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this debate. I will take three minutes to bang on unashamedly about the North Devon link road. It is a pleasure to be part of this cohort of south-west Conservative MPs. We all speak with one voice—
Peter Heaton-Jones
As my hon. Friend exclaims with some reason, where is the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)? We are united on the vital need for the south-west to secure these major road improvements. The overriding reason is that we need that investment to secure the economic future of our region. It is not about getting tourists there more quickly on a Saturday afternoon in August; it is about the vital economic future of the whole south-west.
Within that framework, the north Devon link road is vital. The A361 connects North Devon with the M5. It is our only viable link south and east to the rest of the country. We do not see it as North Devon’s only link to the outside world; we see it as the outside world’s only opportunity to visit us. We must ensure that it is fit for purpose, because at the moment it is not. It is a single carriageway for about 85% of the distance between Tiverton and Barnstaple, some 30 miles apart. Where it is not, it has short overtaking lanes that merge quickly into the main carriageway with little warning. That leads to risk-taking, speeding and, sadly, a high incidence of accidents in which people are killed and seriously injured, on my doorstep. It is hampering economic investment and harming the vital tourist industry. I want to be positive. I do not want to put people off: “Come to North Devon; it is a great place to visit and do business. You will get there eventually.” I want to change the “eventually”.
I have been campaigning for major improvements since well before my election to this place. I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor came and made certain commitments; I say to the Minister that this is the time to deliver on them. Devon County Council is doing fantastic work, thanks to the £1.5 million that the Chancellor has given us to carry out detailed planning work, including putting together a comprehensive business case. I met Devon County Council three hours ago here, and I ensured that we are driving the matter forward so we can make a bid to the local majors fund, a nearly £500 million pot created by the Chancellor.
It is part of the wider picture. The North Devon link road is vital, but it is no good if we cannot get people to the south-west to start with. That is why the A303, the A30 and the A358, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, are vital. They are the backbone of the region’s infrastructure. The North Devon link road is one of the vital arteries connecting it to the rest of the world. I say to the Minister that I know the Government are listening; I am not complaining that they are not. I am merely asking that we now deliver what we promised. Let us put boots on the ground and diggers on the tarmac, and let us have a yellow army of road workers to complement the blue army of Conservative MPs in the south-west.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this important debate. It is ironic that Stonehenge, which has been around for quite some time, has until now caused a blockage to getting the work done. In fact, it has been standing for more than 5,000 years. I am sure that even then, as the stones were dragged down from Wales through my constituency, they caused an enormous queue of donkeys and carts. No doubt even then they were promised a dualling of the A303. Now, their descendants, my constituents, are at last poised on the edge of their seats as they sit in much the same queue, not daring to imagine that it will actually happen. However, I think it will this time, so I am happy to cast aside the memory of Governments committing to improve our roads and then backing down.
Our optimism increased even further with last year’s publication of the road investment strategy, which set out the details of how the £2 billion—or £3 billion; I am not quite sure of the amount—will be deployed. As we have heard, the projected material benefits are vast. Dualling the A303 alone will bring 20,000 jobs and £40 billion over six years. Those are the kinds of number that mean it is a profitable investment in our future. As I have said many times before, if the west country is to compete, grow and even flourish, we must have the structure, framework and infrastructure to do so.
Given how critical the matter is, I, like my hon. Friend, would be grateful if the Minister could give us any indication when the work will begin. When will we see the cones and the contraflows on the ground? Highways England concluded its report in October by saying that the three road measures—that is, the work on the A303, the A358 and the M5—are
“the first steps in our aspiration to provide an expressway between the M3 and the South West”.
So, some 5,000 years after I am sure the plans were first scratched into the west country dust with a blunt stick, I hope that now we can work together to make that aspiration a 21st-century reality.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this debate and indeed all the hon. Members who have contributed to it. They have demonstrated the widespread concern that exists about the need for improved road infrastructure in the south-west. That concern has existed for decades, including concern about a second route through from London to sort out the issue of the route through from the M5, and so on.
James Heappey
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard enough today to be impressed by the need for improvements to the road network in the south-west. Does he agree, therefore, that the commitment to abandon the A358 improvements that was made in the Labour party manifesto last April was deeply misguided, and will he reassure us that his party has already abandoned that commitment?
Richard Burden
I will come on to some of the history around this issue in a little while, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can just be a little patient on that point.
I will just offer apologies for my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). I heard his name come up before. He takes his duties as a member of the Health Committee very seriously and it is meeting at this moment.
The A303 has occupied a lot of the discussion today. Clearly, it is a road that has tested the ability of successive Governments to deliver the kind of objectives that we have been talking about. I think that there was broad support for the road investment strategy that was announced in 2014. However, what I am concerned about and what I would like to press the Minister on today is that despite the Government’s commitment of £2 billion for seven road schemes in the south-west up to 2021, I am not sure that the numbers add up and I am not sure that the start dates are anything other than aspirational.
What we know is that when the previous Labour Government left office, the Highways Agency had a costed and timetabled plan to improve the A303 and to dual the A358 from Ilminster to Taunton, to remove the need to create a new dual carriageway through the Blackdown hills. What we also know is that after 2010 there was a rowing back on capital investment that was worth around £4 billion in total. So when we hear now about this £2 billion coming back in to fund some of these projects, it is important that we interrogate the Government about it a little bit.
According to the pages for the seven schemes on the Highways England website, only five of them have estimated costs and, if I have added up the figures for them correctly, their combined total comes to £2.15 billion. That is already more than £150 million over the £2 billion budget without the other two schemes being considered, and before scope creep and other inflationary pressures are considered.
In March 2015, the Government produced their “feasibility study” of solutions for an alternative road route to the south-west. However, I wonder what it all means, because it is about two years ago—in this very hall, actually—that I pressed the Minister’s predecessor to ensure that that study would lead to progress, but the future seems to be about as clear as mud at the moment.
The status quo pleases no one and it is necessary that we find a solution to the A303 and to Stonehenge. As far as I can see, however, the bottom end of the current cost estimates already seems to double the £410 million estimate that led Labour to review the costs back in 2005. So, can the Minister confirm when he expects a costed and timetabled set of options for the road? In the meantime, has he asked Highways England to evaluate short-term and medium-term options to improve traffic flow and alleviate congestion? Also, can he satisfy concerns that the current front-runner—a 2.9 km tunnel—would protect the integrity of the archaeological site, as required by article 4 of the world heritage convention? And in the event that the Government cannot satisfy the objective of providing a fully costed and timetabled proposal by 2017, what would he do? Would he consider, for instance, handing this work over to the National Infrastructure Commission to consider?
Neil Parish
I have a general question for the shadow Minister. In 1997, when the Labour Government came in, they cancelled the scheme to dual the road between Honiton and Ilminster, so I would just like to know whether there has been a change of policy by the Labour party.
Richard Burden
It is absolutely true—in fact, I think the hon. Gentleman said so in his opening remarks—that the history of these roads, across successive Governments, is riddled with changes of mind, delays, inquiries, and further delays and further inquiries. If I understood his opening remarks correctly, the important thing now is to interrogate the Government over the current plans, and that is where I have certain problems. I do not see a costed timetable; I do not see that the budget covers what already appears to have been committed to; and I would just like to know how the whole thing adds up. The interest that hon. Members have shown today during this debate indicates that they share my concern that we know what the figures are and what they add up to, and that we know when—as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) said—there will be spades in the ground.
Before I finish, I will just raise a couple of other points with the Minister. As well as increasing road capacity, it is also important that we address the issues of, first, the quality of the roads and, secondly, the design of the roads, to ensure that they are as safe as possible. In its first piece of large-scale research as a watchdog, Transport Focus has identified that the top two priorities of road users in the south-west are those two things: improving the quality of roads; and ensuring that the roads have a safer design than they do now.
On the first issue—the quality of the roads—can the Minister put on the record that the Government will meet their pledge to resurface 80% of the network by 2021, as pledged in the Department for Transport’s Action for Roads 2013 document and repeated in the road investment strategy? If that is not going to be the case, perhaps he can explain what the current estimate is.
On the second issue—the safer design of roads—can the Minister offer me some assurances about what he is doing with Highways England to address the safety concerns that have been raised? In the last year, there has been an 8.4% increase in the total number of people being killed or seriously injured on the roads. And in the latest Highways England-financed road user satisfaction survey for May 2015 to October 2015, both the areas of the south-west that were surveyed saw steep drops, when compared with the figures for the previous six months, in the number of road users who said they felt safe. The surveys and the existing casualty figures seem to reveal that the Government are not doing enough to improve road safety in the south-west.
We should address these issues; I think the Minister has to address them. Perhaps it would help him to address them if the Government brought back national road safety targets, as we have often urged them to do.
In closing, I will say that Labour appreciates the infrastructure challenges in the south-west. No Government have been entirely consistent on this issue, and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has made that point. So it is essential that the current Government now bite the bullet and deliver genuine improvements to road routes.
However, if the Government are going to do that, there must be transparency and clarity. We need to know what the figures are. We need to know if it is £2 billion or £3 billion that is going to be spent; if it is £2 billion, then it already appears that that sum has been exceeded. And what will the Minister do on those other issues of road quality, including resurfacing roads to achieve the 80% target that the Government have committed to, and the serious concerns about road safety, which have already been revealed in surveys during the last year?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gray.
Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing today’s debate about upgrading road routes into the south-west. He has been a diligent campaigner on the issue for a considerable time. I was pleased to visit the area last August and to have him drive me down the A303, the A330 and the A30. There could not be a more stellar guided tour than the one he delivers. That visit brought home to me the importance of the lesson we learnt a few years ago: that the south-west needs resilience in its road network. Transport is a key driver of the economy, and an improved network will not only enable better journeys but boost growth. Last year the Chancellor noted that although the south-west accounts for 8.4% of the UK’s population, it accounts for only 7.5% of its economic output. A major reason for that is that the south-west has to put up with slow, unreliable journeys on congested roads, especially between the region and the south-east of England. If the south-west is not to fall further behind, major road investment is needed.
Many hon. Friends have highlighted clearly the importance of road investment in their areas. I was asked specifically about timing, and I will come on to that as I address some of the schemes. In December 2014, the Government launched the road investment strategy, outlining how £15.2 billion will be spent on our strategic roads between now and 2020-21. That is the biggest upgrade to our strategic roads in a generation. Within the strategy, the Government announced that they intend to upgrade the remaining sections of the A303 between the M3 and the A358 to dual carriageway standard. We are also creating a link from the M5 at Taunton to the A303, as part of the long-term commitment to create a new expressway to the south-west, connecting the M3 through to the M5 at expressway quality.
We intend to start the process with three major improvements as part of the A303-A30-A358-corridor package of commitments. The £2 billion budget, which is for only those commitments—it is not the overall budget for the south-west—will help to deliver much-needed resilience for the region. Part of that work has to address the iconic and historically important site of Stonehenge. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has raised that issue with me many times, with his customary tenacity and command of detail. We will build a tunnel at least 1.8 miles in length, to preserve the world heritage site at Stonehenge.
Andrew Jones
It is always appropriate to consider options broadly to ensure that the scheme is absolutely the right one, but there is no doubt whatsoever here; we are committed to delivering a 1.8-mile tunnel at Stonehenge. Our objective is to be able to stand at the stones and not see cars. The tunnel will transform the experience of that important part of our national heritage, and at the same time remove an environmental problem and a traffic problem. We should not, however, confuse the development consent order process requirement to show that different options have been exhausted with reneging upon our commitment. That commitment is strong, and we are working on it closely with environmental and heritage groups. The scheme has strong support from the National Trust and English Heritage; I have met with them at the stones and discussed the issue with them.
On timing, there will be a formal consultation on the scheme early next year. It will go through the development consent order process—part of the planning process—in 2018. We would expect to start works on the scheme in early 2020. We have to get that right, but I hope that that timing provides some comfort.
Dr Murrison
I listen to the Minister’s remarks with great interest. Does he agree that it would not be helpful if we sorted out the extraordinarily difficult conundrum of Stonehenge, which will be incredibly expensive, and yet did not deal with low-hanging fruit? I am thinking particularly of the village of Chicklade, since the problem will simply be shunted further west.
Andrew Jones
That is a valuable point. The scheme is not the only one we are considering for the area. When we consider schemes, they are in a network, and if one part of the network is changed there are consequential implications that we have to work through. I am conscious of time, so I need to press on rapidly.
We will dual the A303 from Sparkford to Ilchester and the A358 from Taunton to Southfields to deliver quicker, safer and more reliable journeys. Concerning the timing, we will begin the public consultation on the Sparkford to Ilchester section and on the A358 enhancements later this year, with Highways England set to make a recommendation to the Government in 2017.
Neil Parish
I very much welcome what has been said about upgrading the A303 all the way through to the A358, but one of the purposes of the debate was to talk about from Ilminster to Honiton, which the Minister seems to have failed to mention—
Andrew Jones
Much as I enjoy my hon. Friend’s speeches, I say to him, “Give me a chance here.” I am conscious of the time.
On the scheme for the A303, we expect to get a development consent order in 2018 and to start works in early 2020. The importance of that scheme was mentioned to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who highlighted its economic impact on her constituency.
Let us take the A303-A30 section between Southfield and Honiton, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton is particularly interested. I was very grateful for the guided tour he gave me in the summertime. I recognise that large-scale improvements are overdue, but this is a sensitive area. Highways England is working with Devon County Council—they are meeting later this week as part of their regular dialogue. We have not forgotten the route, but the topography and the protected landscape surrounding it in the Blackdown hills is sensitive. I also acknowledge the safety record on that stretch of single carriageway. All the points that my hon. Friend made about it are true and the matter is being considered. It is not part of our first round of schemes, but it is not off the agenda; it is being worked up, with local input, and I hope that he will continue to have an input into that.
I must mention some other schemes that we are undertaking in the area. We are investing in dualling the last single-carriageway gap on the A30 into Cornwall. We will have an expressway-standard road running all the way from Exeter to Camborne. On timing, we will have a public consultation this year. I anticipate that Highways England will make a recommendation to the Government in about a year’s time, and that there will be a development consent order in 2018, with works starting in early 2020.
Those are, however, not the only schemes that we are developing in the area. We have the new junction of the M49, to provide access to the enterprise zone at Avonmouth, and we will start works on that in 2017. There are other enhancements along the M5, particularly with a view to unlocking development sites at Hinckley Point. A significant amount of work is taking place. We are addressing pinch points, such as the Air Balloon roundabout.
It is not as if we are just starting work; work is already under way. It was great to come down to Devon only last Monday to open the south Devon highway, which connects Newton Abbot and Torbay. That marvellous and significant project had a great response from local councils and communities. We are also, of course, working on the A30 Temple to Higher Carblake section. When I visited last summer—my goodness, that was a properly wet day; perhaps Cornwall has more than one of them.
Andrew Jones
I have about 30 seconds left, so perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not.
We are working with local partners throughout the schemes. The north Devon link road is an important project. The Government have provided £1.5 million to help develop the business case and we will continue to look at that. Members are right to champion that project. The north-south access from Dorset is clearly overdue. I have met with local enterprise partnerships and councils in the area and we have a further meeting planned to discuss the issue. We are already on the case, and Highways England, the Department for Transport and local authorities are working on it. We are not changing the road investment strategy’s content; our question now is about delivering it.
Road safety was mentioned. Road safety is at the heart of the road investment strategy and we published our road safety statement in December last year.
There might have been other points. I am not sure whether I have addressed all the points; if I have not, I will write to colleagues.
Neil Parish
The blue army here today, comprising some 14 Members, shows how serious we are about getting great roads infrastructure in the south-west. We welcome the Minister’s words, but now we want to see delivery and we want it done quickly. I thank Members for the great support I have had today. Let us get on with the job. Let us get the roads moving in the south-west and let us ensure that the region becomes the land of milk and honey and a powerhouse for the west country, along with the north of England and all parts of the country. It is essential that we do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the upgrading of road routes into the South West.
Written Statements
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Higher Education Student Support
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)
Today I am announcing that the Government are increasing the residency requirement for EU nationals before they can access higher education student living cost support.
In England, EU nationals and their families are able to apply for a tuition fee loan and be charged the “home” rate of fees to attend higher education. This mirrors provisions available to UK students wishing to study abroad in other EU countries. To access student finance, EU nationals need to have been resident in the European Economic Area or Switzerland for the three years prior to the first day of the first academic year. EU nationals who have been resident in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man for three years can also apply for support for their living costs.
The higher education student support budget is under pressure from increasing numbers of applicants from the EU and the Government are taking steps to manage the burden on the taxpayer.
The Government are therefore increasing the residency requirement that EU nationals must meet in order to be eligible for living cost support. EU nationals that start their courses in the 2016-17 academic year onwards will be required to demonstrate five years’ residency in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. This change will come into effect for applications submitted to the Student Loans Company after the amending regulations have come into force later this month. Students who are already studying will not be affected by these changes.
This change will bring us more into line with the rules set by other EU countries including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden who generally require five years’ residency in the home country before students become eligible for living cost support. The recently published student loan repayment strategy will help to ensure all borrowers repay what is due.
The increased residency requirement will not apply to UK nationals to whom the existing three year residency rule will continue to apply. EEA migrant workers and their family members are also not affected by this change.
I am grateful to those who responded to the consultation, and whose comments helped us carefully consider the implications of our proposals.
[HCWS559]
Contingencies Fund
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
The Cabinet Office wishes to report that a cash advance from the Contingencies Fund has been sought for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (referred to as the “Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration” in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and the “Health Service Commissioner” in the Health Services Commissioners Act 1993).
The advance has been sought to meet a cash requirement resulting from planned expenditure set out in supplementary estimates. As authority for the cash will not be granted until March with the passage of the Supply and Appropriation Act, and the ombudsman has to settle some bills before then, a Contingencies Fund advance has been requested.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £801,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £801,000 will be met by repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS564]
Open and Transparent Government
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
This Government are committed to making Government more transparent, so taxpayers can hold the state to account both on how their money is being spent and how decisions are made which affect their lives.
The Freedom of Information Act is one of the pillars on which open Government operates. We are committed to supporting the Act. Yet after more than a decade in operation, it is appropriate to review, in the whole, how it has operated in practice, and establish how its mechanisms could be improved.
Consequently, in July 2015, we established an independent, cross-party Commission on Freedom of Information. The Commission has now submitted its report. Given the keen public and media interest in the report, we are promptly publishing it alongside our preliminary views on its recommendations.
We are very grateful to the Commission for its thorough and thoughtful work in this significant and complex area. The Commission’s review has attracted considerable interest and should be commended for an even-handed approach to gathering evidence from across a very broad spectrum. This approach is reflected in the balanced set of measures put forward in the report.
The Commission makes 21 specific recommendations. It notes that while some of its recommendations require legislation, other improvements can be made without legislative change. The Government’s views on some of the most salient recommendations are as follows:
Charging for freedom of information requests:
The Government agree with the Commission’s view that it is not appropriate to introduce fees for requests, over and above the existing narrow circumstances in which a requestor can be currently charged for disbursement costs. We appreciate that some public authorities are concerned by the burdens imposed on them by the Act and the associated costs. However, the introduction of new fees would lead to a reduction in the ability of requesters, especially the media, to make use of the Act. We believe that transparency can help save taxpayers’ money, by driving out waste and inefficiency.
The Cabinet veto:
The Commission recommends the introduction of a narrower and more limited veto provision. The Government agree with the Commission’s analysis that Parliament intended the executive to be able to have the final say as to whether information should be released under the Act. In line with the Commission’s thinking, the Government will in future only deploy the veto after an Information Commissioner decision. On the basis that this approach proves effective, we will not bring forward legislation at this stage.
Updating practice guidance:
The Government agree with the Commission’s recommendations to review the operation of Section 45 of the Act to ensure that the range of issues on which guidance can be offered to public authorities under the code of practice is sufficient and up to date. Public authorities should have sufficient guidance and advice properly to manage information access requests and to continue the Government’s mandate of being the most transparent Government in the world. This does not require legislation.
Publication of freedom of information statistics:
The Cabinet Office already publishes detailed statistics on a quarterly and annual basis on the operation of the Act within central Government. It is important that other public authorities should be similarly transparent. We know that many other organisations already publish such data, but this does not happen consistently. The publication of such data not only provides accountability to the public, but allows the Information Commissioner to identify and target poorly performing public authorities more effectively. We will therefore issue guidance in the revised section 45 code of practice to set a standard that public authorities with 100 full-time equivalent employees or more should publish such information.
Public interest and risk assessments:
Noting that the Commission did not provide a formal recommendation regarding risk assessments, the Government agree with the Commission’s analysis that considering the public interest remains the best way to assess whether specific risk assessments should be released. This will allow the important balance between providing robust protection for sensitive information and transparency to be maintained.
Handling vexatious requests:
The Commission’s recognises the difficulty that genuinely “vexatious” requests can place on public authorities. We agree with the recommendation of improved guidance, via a revised code of practice, to allow public authorities to use section 14(1) in the rare cases where it is necessary and appropriate. The exercise by citizens of legal rights also brings with it responsibilities—and access to information rights should not be abused to cause distress or a means of harassment. Equally, the “vexatious” designation is not an excuse to save public officials’ embarrassment from poor decisions or inappropriate spending of taxpayers’ money. This will not require legislation.
Greater transparency on pay and perks of senior staff:
The Commission recognises the advances that have been made to increase transparency about senior executives’ pay and benefits. Further steps will be taken to ensure this transparency is delivered across the whole public sector. The default position should be that such information from all public bodies is published; that the public should not have to resort to making freedom of information requests to obtain it, and data protection rules should not be used as an excuse to hide the taxpayer-funded payments to such senior public sector executives. We will now consider what additional steps should be taken to address any gaps in published information, and in particular in relation to expenses and benefits in kind as recommended, including more broadly than at present.
The Government will carefully consider the Commission’s other recommendations.
The Government have already demonstrated our commitment to openness through the publication of around 23,000 datasets on https://www.data.gov.uk. We are proud of the recognition we have received as the world’s leading country on open data through the World Wide Web Foundation’s open data barometer. Our next Open Government Partnership national action plan, to be published later this year, will set stretching new commitments to take UK transparency further.
A copy of the Commission’s report is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and will be published online on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS566]
BBC: Governance and Regulation
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
On 16 September 2015, as part of the charter review process, I announced an independent review into the governance and regulation of the BBC.
I am pleased today to announce the publication of the report for the review of the governance and regulation of the BBC. This review has been independently led on behalf of the Government by Sir David Clementi, to whom I would like to record my thanks for his excellent work in considering this important issue.
The review is now completed and has been laid before the House today. A copy of the report has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The review is also available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-review-of-the-governance-and-regulation-of-the-bbc
On 16 July 2015, as part of the charter review process, I also announced a consultation on the future of the BBC. The consultation ran from 16 July 2015 to 8 October 2015 and received 192,564 responses.
I am pleased to announce the publication of the report summarising these consultation responses and I confirm that this report will be laid before the House today. A copy of the report will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The report is also available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504099/BBC_ Charter_Review_Public_Consultation-_Summary_ of_Responses.pdf
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament. uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-03-01/HCWS567/.
[HCWS567]
GCSE/A-levels
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
We are reforming GCSEs, AS and A-levels to make sure that they provide students with the best possible preparation for further and higher education, and for employment. We want new GCSEs to set expectations which match those of the best education systems in the world, with rigorous assessment that provides a reliable measure of students’ achievement. The reforms are extensive and represent a new qualification gold standard.
Schools are now teaching some of the new reformed GCSEs and A-levels, and we have already published reformed subject content for those GCSEs and A-levels to be taught from September 2016. Content for reformed GCSE subjects and for AS and A-level subjects can be found on gov.uk.
The new GCSEs will be more academically demanding and reformed AS and A-levels will better prepare students for undergraduate study.
Today I am publishing revised subject content for the final group of GCSEs and AS and A-levels that will be taught in schools from September 2017:
physical education short course GCSE,
GCSE sociology, and
AS and A-levels in geology, politics and statistics.
The physical education GCSE short course represents half the content of the revised PE GCSE that was published in January 2015. Like the full course, demand has increased with a greater emphasis on theory and use of data. Students will also have the opportunity to develop and demonstrate practical skills and will be assessed in one team and one individual sport/activity.
The more demanding sociology GCSE requires students to develop an understanding of the classical theorists and how their ideas have contributed to the development of current sociological orthodoxies. They will compare and contrast competing theoretical approaches to explain society, drawing connections between the different topic areas, and students will now be required to read and respond to extracts from classic and contemporary sociological texts.
Geology AS and A-level content requires students to take a more quantitative and mathematical approach to the study of geology. New content includes the study of geochemistry, the role of fluids in geology, engineering geology and geohazard risk analysis. Fieldwork remains a key part of the subject, and students will carry out relevant and meaningful fieldwork activities that will be assessed across a full range of practical competencies, developed with HE stakeholders, in order to prepare them for further geological study.
The final content for politics AS and A-level requires all students to understand a fourth political idea, in addition to their study of conservatism, liberalism and socialism. Students will choose from feminism, multiculturalism, anarchism, nationalism or ecologism, and know and understand the core principles and features of these ideas. As part of this they will study the work of a diverse list of political thinkers who have contributed to each idea. Following consultation, we have revised the list of political theorists to make sure that female thinkers are appropriately represented. At A-level, students will choose between a comparative study of USA and UK politics and Government, which now includes understanding different approaches to comparative politics, or a study of global politics.
The reformed statistics AS and A-level requires students to study the statistical enquiry cycle and to perform key statistical calculations such as Bayes’ theorem and one and two sample non-parametric tests. Students will be required to know and use fundamental formulae, for example to determine the Poisson probability formula and analysis of variance. New content has been added, such as choosing the appropriate hypothesis test to carry out in particular circumstances and calculating the risk of a type II error.
[HCWS565]
Security of Supply and the Capacity Market
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
I wish to set out the Government’s intention for reforms to the way we secure electricity capacity for future years, to ensure a secure, affordable supply in the short and longer terms. In laying this statement before Parliament, I am also setting out the Government’s policy intent to makes changes to our policy on the capacity market and the corresponding Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014 and the Capacity Market (Amendment) Rules 2014.
Security of supply—the context
Delivering energy security is the number one priority for DECC. Maintaining the secure electricity supplies that hard-working families and businesses across the country can rely on is our key objective. We face a legacy of years of underinvestment which has left us more open to the risk of any quickening in the pace of plant closures. To address this we need to start building new capacity now, especially gas, to guarantee our energy security in the 2020s.
At the same time, the huge movement in global commodities prices during 2015 has lowered consumers’ energy costs but has made generating power unprofitable for most non-renewable plant. Thermal generators are experiencing lower utilisation levels as a result of increasing renewable capacity and coal plant, in particular, are facing large losses. In consequence, we have seen several closures announced and other plant may be at risk. We therefore need decisive action now to ensure energy security.
Our principal existing security of supply tool is the capacity market (CM). Two CM auctions have now been held, for delivery in 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. While, given the target levels that were set, the auctions procured relatively little new capacity, both auctions went smoothly and secured capacity at very low prices for consumers.
Capacity market review
As a result we have been reviewing the CM mechanism to ensure it remains fit for the purpose of bringing forward the new capacity we need, particularly gas plant, as older plant such as coal come off the system.
The clear message from industry and investors that we have heard as part of the review is that the mechanism retains their confidence; is the best available approach to our long-term security of supply; and that regulatory stability is of crucial importance. At the same time, we have heard clear concerns that we must do more to protect against delivery risks; that we need to tighten the incentives on those with agreements to honour those agreements; and ensure that the full range of delivery risks are accounted for in our procurement decisions; and that we must avoid the risk of under-buying, or buying too late—which would mean that new plant had insufficient incentive to come forward. The overarching message has been that the volume of capacity procured needs to rise and the clearing price needs to increase as a result in order to provide the appropriate incentives for the market to bring forward new gas capacity.
We have reflected on these messages, and agree with them. We are therefore now proposing a plan of reform for the CM in three important respects:
Buying more capacity, and buying it earlier. We will expect the next CM “T-4” auction in December 2016 to buy materially more capacity than might otherwise have been the case;
Tightening delivery incentives on those who have agreements to deliver against them and to penalise those who renege more severely;
Tackling how wholesale prices impact in the short term on energy security, holding a new auction to bring forward the first CM delivery year to 2017-18. We propose to hold a new one-year ahead auction this coming winter for delivery in winter 2017-18.
Buying more capacity, and buying it earlier
We need to buy more capacity, and buy it earlier, in order to manage the increased risks we face in the next decade as we transition away from coal and as older plant close. The precise target for the next (December 2016) four-year ahead CM auction will not be set until summer, once Government have had the chance to review detailed recommendations from National Grid. But we have been discussing with them, and with our own panel of technical experts (PTE), the range of factors which it is appropriate to take into account. It is clear from these discussions that the incorporation of a new sensitivity to reflect these increased non-delivery risks will be recommended. We would expect this as a minimum to lead to an increase in the target volume of around 1GW, and we will be seeking expert advice on whether it should be higher. We will also consider whether it is appropriate to cover for a more extreme cold winter scenario.
We are also likely to bring forward much of the target procurement to the four-year ahead auction, that we might otherwise leave until one year ahead. In previous auctions we have set aside 2.5GW for purchase at the one-year ahead “T-1” stage, but purchasing more of our estimated requirement earlier should help new plant such as gas participate to meet those requirements.
Of course, the precise target will be set in the light of all the evidence available at the time, including crucially an updated value for money analysis. There could for example be trade-offs in purchasing capacity early, which may hedge against risk and allow new resources to compete, but which brings with it some risk of over-procurement if demand subsequently shifts. Nonetheless, taken together, we would expect the next auction to purchase significantly more capacity—perhaps over 3GW more—than would otherwise have been the case. And, of course, if it becomes clear that plant which already have capacity agreements for the 2020-21 delivery year will fail to make good on their agreements, then we would expect to re-buy that capacity too from other sources.
We are confident that a healthy pipeline of robust baseload and peaking gas projects stands ready to take advantage of the opportunities we are creating, and that the revised CM will deliver the new plant we need. Consultation suggests that, provided the CM is reformed in the way described, there are few if any other barriers to these projects coming through to fruition—but the Government will continue discussions with developers and investors to ensure that no unnecessary barriers exist to bringing forward an appropriate mix of plant.
Tightening delivery incentives
It is crucial for our security of supply that, when companies take on an obligation to deliver, they then make good on that commitment. If they do not, it creates shortfalls in capacity that need to filled, putting our security of supply unacceptably at risk. It is also potentially unfair to other bidders who would have been able to secure agreements. For this reason we need a robust system of checks both on new build projects, to ensure that they are on track to deliver by the delivery year, and on existing plant to ensure that they honour their agreements. At the same time, it is important that our requirements and sanctions regime are not so punitive that legitimate projects are dissuaded from participating in the first place.
We consulted in October on a range of potential new requirements to tighten the assurance regime around new build projects. In the light of responses, we are now implementing a number of these proposals—including a ban on failed projects from participating in future auctions, increased monitoring and reporting milestones, and potential increases in credit cover for projects who cannot demonstrate sufficient progress by the 11-month stage. Taken together, and on top of the existing requirements, these should materially increase the incentives on projects to have robust delivery plans in place from an early date and, if they are to fail, encourage them to fail early, allowing more time for National Grid to seek alternative sources of supply.
However, we also heard evidence that one of our original proposals, for a system of pre-auction finance tests linked to auction bids, could act as a barrier to entry for robust independent projects. We take these concerns seriously, and are therefore not proposing to implement these proposals now as they stand. Instead, we are now inviting views on an alternative suggestion, that credit cover for all new projects should be increased at the pre-auction stage.
At the same time, we are taking the opportunity to consult on higher termination fees for existing plant who renege on agreements, to ensure that they fulfil their commitments.
Holding a new auction to bring forward the first CM delivery year to 2017-18
The reforms outlined above will mean that the CM can guarantee our security of supply now and in the future. But we also need to take decisive action in the shorter term.
National Grid has a firm plan in place to take the actions needed to maintain our margins this coming winter and the Contingency Balancing Reserve (CBR) supports them in balancing the system in light of tightening margins. But the price of securing reserves of this sort has been increasing in recent years; and it has always been recognised that a reserve, if allowed to grow too large, can cause distortion in the market.
We therefore propose to bring forward the start of the CM delivery period by a year, by holding an auction this coming winter (likely to be in January 2017) for delivery one year ahead, in winter 2017-18. This auction would purchase 100% of CM requirement for that year—in other words, while its structure and timings will be similar to the T-1 auction, it will procure our full capacity requirement, not just a top-up. This will provide assurance for the 2017-18 year and enable the CBR to be closed for that year as it is replaced by the CM. Ofgem have said that they expect the need for the CBR to disappear once the CM is in place.
This Government have promised to remove distortion and interventions from the market. We recognise that although the CBR has safeguarded our energy security, it increasingly risks doing so at the cost of distorting investment and plant closure decisions. By introducing the CM early, we allow the market to operate better earlier with less price volatility and uncertainty—a more efficient way of delivering energy security.
Diesel
Finally, we have heard a number of complaints that diesel engines have unfair advantages in the CM due to how they are treated in the main energy market. We think there may be merit in these concerns, and reasons why it could be hoped, but also expected, that diesel will play a smaller role in future.
There are concerns over the potential impact on local air quality. The CM is technology neutral, and as such any type of technology is allowed to participate provided it is otherwise in compliance with relevant legislation—so it would not be appropriate to set specific emission limits within the CM eligibility criteria. However, Government are not complacent, and plan to take swift and appropriate action to avoid any disproportionate impact on air quality from diesel engines via new environmental legislation introducing appropriate emission limit values for air pollutants for new generators, where these could significantly contribute to harmful levels of air pollutants and the exceeding of air quality limit values.
DEFRA will consult later this year on options which will include legislation that would set binding emission limit values on relevant air pollutants from diesel engines, with a view to having legislation in force no later than January 2019, and possibly sooner. These limits would apply to generators or groups of generators with a rated thermal input equal to or greater than 1 MW and less than 50 MW[1]—irrespective of their number of hours of operation during any given year.
Small distribution-connected generators are receiving increasing revenues from “embedded benefits” which include avoided transmission network charges. Some of this is justified because they offer system benefits such as avoided network reinforcement costs. However Ofgem has previously expressed concerns that these arrangements are not fully cost reflective; and hence “embedded benefits” may over-reward distribution-connected generators such as diesel reciprocating engines. Moreover, the proportion of generation connected at distribution level is increasing and so is the impact of flows from the distribution network on the transmission network.
Ofgem is therefore concerned that these charging arrangements could be having an increasing impact on the system, including distorting investment decisions and leading to inefficient outcomes in the CM. Ofgem is therefore reviewing whether it would be in consumers’ interests to change the charging arrangements for distribution-connected generators. Ofgem will set out their conclusions and a proposed way forward on this matter, potentially including initiating changes to the charging regime, in the summer. Ofgem will need to consider carefully how and when any changes should be implemented, including whether any transitional arrangements are required, and will aim to provide clarity on their direction of travel before prequalification for the next CM auction.
Consultation
Implementation of the policy positions outlined above requires a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory action:
Some changes we are now making to our delivery assurance regime reflect the outcome of a recent consultation. The consultation also discussed a number of other incremental improvements and simplifications to the CM design. I am publishing today the Government’s full position on the outcome of that consultation exercise.
Some further changes to the delivery assurance regime and other areas and, crucially, the ability to hold the proposed additional auction for delivery in 2017-18, are discussed in a separate formal public consultation document I am publishing today.
Changes to auction parameters, including the amount to procure, do not require new regulations. Instead they will be determined as usual by the Secretary of State, in the light of expert advice, in summer, before prequalification starts for the next auction. Specific proposals for the parameters (e.g. precise volume targets) are therefore not discussed in the documents I am publishing today, but the intention to purchase more capacity, and earlier, in that auction forms an important context when considering what I am announcing today as a whole.
[1] The existing industrial emissions directive applies to 50MW+ generation.
[HCWS560]
National Wildlife Crime Unit
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
The national wildlife crime unit is a specialist unit dedicated to tackling wildlife crime, playing an important role in wildlife law enforcement both at home and internationally. It provides intelligence and direct assistance to individual police forces and other UK law enforcement agencies, including providing specialist support that allows warranted officers to investigate wildlife crime. The unit also acts as the UK policing focal point for EUROPOL and INTERPOL activity on all wildlife crime related matters, and works in partnership with non-governmental agencies across the UK committed to tackling wildlife crime.
Following the spending review 2015, DEFRA and Home Office Ministers have been considering the level of Government funding for the national wildlife crime unit beyond March 2016.
In recognition of the important contribution the unit makes to tackling wildlife crime, both at home and abroad, I can confirm that DEFRA and Home Office Ministers have agreed that their respective Departments will each provide the unit with funding of £136,000 a year for the next four financial years. This will give the unit significant financial stability and enable its vital work to continue until at least 2020. Those contributions will be in addition to the funding central Government provides to police forces in England and Wales to tackle all types of crime—including wildlife crime.
In addition, DEFRA will provide the unit with up to £29,000 a year over the next four years for specific work to tackle wildlife crime conducted online, as a developing area of global criminal activity.
Government funding for the national wildlife crime unit jointly provided by DEFRA and the Home Office up to March 2020, including additional support from DEFRA to tackle online wildlife crime, will total £1.204 million.
[HCWS561]
Investigatory Powers Bill
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I have today introduced the Investigatory Powers Bill. This important piece of legislation will provide a new framework to govern the use and oversight of investigatory powers by law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies. The enhanced privacy safeguards, which are at the heart of the Bill, protect not only sensitive professions but the public at large.
The Investigatory Powers Bill will transform the law relating to the use and oversight of these powers. It will strengthen safeguards and introduce world-leading oversight arrangements. The Bill does three things:
First, it brings together all of the powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It will make these powers—and the safeguards that apply to them—clear and understandable.
Secondly, the Bill radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a “double-lock” for interception warrants, so that, following Secretary of State authorisation, these—and other warrants—cannot come into force until they have been approved by a judge. And it creates a powerful new investigatory powers commissioner (IPC) to oversee how these powers are used.
Thirdly, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Bill makes provision for the retention of internet connection records (ICRs) in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.
Last year, three comprehensive reviews were conducted into the use of investigatory powers. Those reviews, carried out by David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC), and a panel convened by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), agreed that the use of these powers will remain vital to the work of law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies in the future. But they also agreed that the current legislation needed reforming. Collectively they proposed important changes to the way these powers are overseen and recommended the introduction of consistent safeguards and greater openness. These proposals provided the basis for the legislation being brought forward today.
In November 2015 the Government published a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The provisions in the draft Bill were considered by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament convened to scrutinise the draft Bill.
The Government are grateful to the three Committees for their thorough and comprehensive scrutiny of this Bill. Their efforts have assisted us in enhancing safeguards and refining technical aspects. The revised Bill we are introducing today is both clearer and stronger in protecting privacy.
Between them, those Committees received a significant body of written evidence and heard from Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The revised Bill, along with the further explanatory material that we are publishing, reflects the majority of the recommendations made by the three Committees. I am publishing a Command Paper alongside this Bill which sets out the Government’s response to the three Committees and provides a guide to the Bill, setting out clearly how the draft Bill responds to their recommendations.
We have taken significant steps to address the common themes across the three reports. In particular:
We have responded to the Committees’ call for greater clarity by producing a much clearer Bill. We have refined technical definitions and are publishing additional material alongside the Bill to explain how the powers in the Bill will be used and why they are needed.
The privacy safeguards are stronger and clearer. The Bill incorporates additional protections for journalists, removing a key exemption for the security and intelligence agencies when seeking to identify journalists’ sources. And it incorporates statutory protections for lawyers.
In response to recommendations from the Joint Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, we will continue to work closely with industry to develop implementation plans for retaining internet connection records.
In response to the Committees’ detailed recommendations, the Bill incorporates significant changes, including:
Strengthening the office and powers of the investigatory powers commissioner, giving the Lord Chief Justice a role in his or her appointment, making it harder to remove him or her from office, providing statutory powers for direct access to the agencies’ IT systems, and allowing for the commissioner to inform people who have suffered as a result of the inappropriate use of powers.
Introducing new safeguards for interception warrants, reducing the period of time within which a judicial commissioner must approve urgent interception—and equipment interference—warrants and putting in place new statutory safeguards to prevent agencies asking overseas partners to undertake interception in the absence of a warrant.
Clarifying the provisions in the Bill relating to the obligations that may be placed on communication service providers, including amendments to the Bill to put beyond doubt that companies can only be asked to remove encryption that they themselves have applied—or has been applied on their behalf by a third party—and that they will not be asked to remove encryption where it is not practicable for them to do so. The accompanying codes of practice also make clear that a warrant can only be served on a person who is capable of providing the assistance required by the warrant, and that the duty to comply with the warrant can only be enforced against a person who is capable of complying with it.
Where we have not been able to accept the Committees’ recommendations, our response to the Committees explains the good reasons for not accepting them. In particular:
We will continue to use “economic well-being”, where it is linked to national security, as a purpose for which some of these powers can be used. That is in line with the statutory purposes of the intelligence agencies and relevant European directives.
We also preserve bulk equipment interference warrants. This is a key operational requirement for GCHQ. We have published a public case for the use of bulk powers which sets out why this power remains necessary.
To assist Parliament in scrutinising the Bill, and at the recommendation of the Joint Committee, the Government are publishing today drafts of six statutory codes of practice that will be made under the Bill. These address many of the Committees’ recommendations by providing details of how the powers and obligations will work in practice. The codes will be approved by Parliament and will have statutory force.
The Government have also heeded comments that we must go further in making the case for the bulk powers provided for in the Bill. I firmly believe bulk powers are a vital part of this Bill. As those who wish to do us harm grow ever more sophisticated in circumventing the reach of law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies, we must provide them with the powers they need to keep up and keep us safe. The bulk powers in this Bill provide essential capabilities needed to detect threats to the UK and its interests. But it is right that Parliament has a chance to debate these powers and that the public understands what the law permits with regards to their personal data.
In response to the recommendation of the Joint Committee, the Government are publishing alongside the Bill an operational case for bulk powers. This sets out in more detail than ever before why the agencies need these powers, examples of how they are used, and the safeguards that will govern their use under the Bill. We have also updated the published case for internet connection records to reflect that we are accepting the Joint Committee’s recommendation that, where necessary and proportionate, the purposes for which law enforcement may seek to access ICR should be expanded to include information about websites accessed beyond those related to communications services and illegal material.
The Joint Committee recommended that the Bill should provide that a specially constituted joint committee of the two Houses should conduct a post-legislative review of the legislation after five years’ operation. It is not possible to bind Parliament in statute to take such action, so instead the revised Bill addresses the recommendation by requiring the Secretary of State to consider any report which may have been made by a Joint Select Committee. However, it is right that such scrutiny should take place and the Government are committed to taking all steps within their power to ensure that it does.
The Government are not seeking sweeping new powers. Rather the Bill ensures that the security and intelligence agencies and law enforcement continue to have the powers they need to keep us safe against a backdrop of an increasingly complex, serious and unpredictable threat. The Bill provides the public and Parliament with greater confidence that there are robust measures in place to ensure that the powers are subject to world-leading safeguards.
The new legislation needs to be in force by 31 December 2016. During the parliamentary passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, some suggested that the sunset clause should be brought closer and therefore that new legislation should gain Royal Assent sooner. This would have resulted in substantially less time for public debate and scrutiny in Parliament.
I explained then that it was vital that sufficient time was given to examine these important powers, and Parliament agreed that approach. I subsequently set out a timetable for new legislation on the publication of David Anderson’s report, committing to publish draft legislation in the autumn and to bring forward a final Bill in the spring. By introducing the Bill now, we are ensuring that this important piece of legislation will be subject to full and thorough scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament, following the normal parliamentary timetable.
[HCWS568]
Housing
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) has made the following written statement.
In the autumn statement 2015, we announced that when assessing eligibility for housing benefit and universal credit that local housing allowance rates would be applied to all social rents from April 2018, where tenants had signed new or re-let tenancies from 1 April 2016.
I am able to announce today that the Government will put in place a year-long exception for all tenants of supported accommodation in the social sector so that this measure will only apply to these tenancies from April 2017, rather than April 2016. As examples, this will include refuges for those fleeing domestic abuse, homeless provision, housing for ex-offenders, as well as supported housing for older and disabled people. I can also confirm that the one year exception will extend to housing co-operatives, alms houses and community land trusts.
I am doing this because I understand the importance of ensuring that both those living in supported accommodation and those who provide this type of accommodation receive appropriate protections. This is why we are awaiting the outcome of a supported accommodation research project and subsequent policy review, to ensure support is focused on the most vulnerable, and appropriate groups are safeguarded. I consider it important to have evidence to support any decisions made, before determining the level of any protections for this cohort beyond April 2017.
I will write to social landlords and provide guidance that will allow them to advise people taking on new and re-let tenancies from either April 2016 or April 2017 (for supported accommodation) as to how they may be impacted.
[HCWS563]
State Pension Age
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) has made the following written statement.
I am pleased to announce, under section 27(5) of the Pensions Act 2014, the appointment of John Cridland as the independent lead of the state pension age review, which the Government will report on by May 2017.
John Cridland was most recently director-general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). He is currently chair of the board of Transport for the North. He has previously helped to negotiate the UK’s first national minimum wage, spent 10 years on the Low Pay Commission and he was also a member of the Council of ACAS. He was awarded a CBE for services to business in 2006.
The purpose of the independent review is to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on factors to consider in arriving at future state pension age arrangements. The recommendations should be affordable in the long term, fair to current and future generations of pensioners and consistent with supporting fuller working lives. The review will be forward looking and focused on the longer term. It will not cover the existing state pension age timetable up to April 2028 which is already legislated for.
The terms of reference for the review to this statement are available on the gov.uk website.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-03-01/HCWS562/.
[HCWS562]
Grand Committee
Armed Forces Bill
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, welcome to the Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bell rings and resume after 10 minutes.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“Membership of the Court Martial
(1) Section 155 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (constitution of the Court Martial) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3)(b), leave out from “rest” to end of line and insert “may be drawn from all ranks who are qualified for membership and not ineligible under section 157.”(3) In subsection (4) at end insert “which may, in particular, provide that the persons specified in subsection (1)(b) be drawn from each and every branch of the armed services.””
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I start by reminding your Lordships that at Second Reading I expressed my concern about the reputational damage that might be done to the forces’ disciplinary service by the possibility of future cases attracting the sort of adverse publicity that has occurred in the past. When we dealt with the 2006 Act we sorted out many of the problems that then existed, and the system was completely changed so as to reflect decisions made in the European Court of Human Rights about fair trial. I had no concerns about Sections 1 to 39 of the Act, which dealt with what I regard as disciplinary offences—indeed, “discipline” and “offences” are headings in Part 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. They might be offences such as assisting an enemy, mutiny, desertion, insubordination, neglect of duty, offences against service justice, hazarding of ships and so on. To my mind, those things were satisfactorily dealt with at that time.
However, Section 42 of the Act was concerned with criminal conduct. Repeating provisions in earlier service disciplinary Acts, it effectively made an ordinary criminal offence part of the service discipline system, so that:
“A person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, commits an offence … if he does any act that … is punishable by the law of England and Wales; or … if done in England or Wales, would be so punishable”.
In other words, the whole corpus of the criminal law that is used in our ordinary criminal courts was imported into the service disciplinary system.
At that time, I moved certain amendments having regard to Section 42 which I hoped would mirror the proceedings that happen in the Crown Courts of this country when such criminal offences come before those courts. I do not apologise for repeating some of those amendments today.
We were concerned particularly about justice between state, the prosecution and the defendant, but there is another element in it which I think was of less significance at that time than it is now; that is, the position of victims. We have seen such adverse publicity—including, for example, the Sergeant Blackman case—which is damaging to the service disciplinary procedures. It is very often proceedings or publicity that is sought by the victims of various offences.
I want to take a step back to look at the police and the banks in this context. As an example, PC Harwood was prosecuted for manslaughter in the Old Bailey for the death of Ian Tomlinson, the person whom he struck in a demonstration in the City of London in 2009. If that prosecution had been carried out by senior officers in the police and they made the decision that he was not guilty of the manslaughter offence—as he was found by an ordinary jury in the Old Bailey—I am sure that there would have been very great public concern. Had the officers who were concerned with the death of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005 been prosecuted before a panel of senior police officers, there would have been a public outcry.
Some years ago under the Labour Government we were concerned with attacks upon the jury system. There was a strong call at that time for there to be special juries consisting of City people—accountants, bankers—who would understand the workings of the City in a way which an ordinary jury, it was argued, could not possibly comprehend. That was before the 2008 crash. Bankers have become rather less popular than they were in those days. One can imagine the public outcry that would have followed if bankers had been asked to determine the guilt or innocence, the honesty or dishonesty, of one of their own kind.
I know that there are differences, but I use the police and bankers to illustrate public perceptions of justice that is carried out by the services. I do not agree that there is injustice, but I suggest that there is a lack of confidence among the public and victims regarding the way that their concerns may be treated in the military court martial system. I declare an interest as the chairman of the Association of Military Court Advocates. I have had experience of serious murder cases and so on in the services and I have every confidence in the judges and those who appear in those court martial courts. However, I am concerned about public perception.
There are two ways in which one can approach this. One can say, let us change the system so as to make it closer to the Crown Court. Or one can say, take the serious offences away from the court martial system altogether. I am following both as alternatives in the amendments I am putting forward. I am now speaking to Amendments 1, 2 and 3 and draw your Lordships’ attention to them.
The first amendment would widen the pool of those who can sit on the panel that decides guilt or innocence in a court martial. Instead of having officers and perhaps one warrant officer—the most senior of the other ranks—sitting on a court martial as at present, it should be open to all ranks. There are those who are used to looking at the forces as a family with a familial feeling towards its members and who feel that officers are responsible for their men, as they know them and they know the circumstances, and that they should be the people who decide and so on. I know that that is the system but there is nothing particularly revolutionary about having all ranks sitting on courts martial. Although there are criticisms of the American system of courts martial, voiced in particular by my opposite number in the United States and the national military justice organisation that he heads, nevertheless in 1952 it was decided that other ranks could sit on courts martial where a defendant asked for that.
It seems to me that the time has come to widen to other ranks the people who can appear in courts martial, so Amendment 2 says:
“A person is qualified for membership of the Court Martial if he or she is a serving member of the armed forces and is subject to service law”.
It does not have to be an officer or a warrant officer; people can be drawn from a wider pool. It is my view that that would give rather more public confidence in the system of courts martial than the top-down system that we have at the moment, and have always had, of officers and the warrant officer sitting in judgment.
Noble Lords will see that Amendment 3 deals with another aspect. Whereas in the ordinary courts of this country where we have a jury sitting, guilt is established either by the unanimous verdict of the jury or by a majority consisting of no less than 10:2 or, if the jury has dropped to 11 members, 9:2, the system in the Armed Forces is, and always has been, that it is determined by a simple majority. Therefore, if five sit on the panel, a person can be found guilty by 3:2, and, if seven sit, it can be 4:3. The way in which the panel votes is never made public. It is never said that this is a majority verdict; a simple majority verdict is returned. Consequently, in Amendment 3 I suggest that we should change the system and that, where there are not fewer than seven members of the court, five should agree on the finding, and, where there are five members of the court, four should agree on the finding.
I repeat that the current position is that the judge advocate has no vote. If the finding is one of guilt, the president should state in open court the numbers who agreed and dissented from the finding and the panel should have time, as does an ordinary jury, to consider reaching a unanimous verdict before coming to its conclusion. At the moment, it is theoretically possible for the panel to retire and for a verdict by a simple majority to be passed immediately, with the panel returning to court and delivering the verdict. If the verdict is one of guilt, the defendant does not know that there were those who did not accept the finding.
New subsection (5) proposed under proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 3 is also important. Currently, the panel with the judge advocate taking a part determines the sentence, but we have got to a situation where sentencing is so complex that I suggest that the judge advocate alone should pass the sentence—there are so many options and precedents that it should not be decided by the panel—after consultation with the members of the court martial.
Earl Attlee
“( ) For subsection 1(b) substitute—“(b) 12 other persons (“lay members”).”( ) For subsection 2(a) substitute—“(a) 12 lay members; or”.”
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I still have an interest as I will be commissioned until October, when I have to retire.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggested that we needed to look at the composition and operation of the court martial. The Minister said that it would be a big change to alter these arrangements. However, that is why we have a quinquennial review. The MoD can quite easily change the court martial rules but bigger changes are a matter for us in Parliament.
One of the problems we have with some of the suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is that we have very little idea of how either a civil jury or a court martial board works because research is illegal, except for certain criminal investigations. Therefore, the Minister cannot prove that the system is as good as we can make it, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, cannot show that it is defective—we do not know how the system operates. The difficulty is particularly relevant to the noble Lord’s amendment on majority verdicts. The Committee needs to remember that the board of a court martial is not a jury; it is composed of officers and warrant officers superior in rank to the defendant. My Amendment 11 proposes to permit closely controlled research into how the board works. I envisage that this would take place soon after all normal appeal rights had been exhausted or were time-expired. Members of the board would not be told in advance that they would be contributing to the research, and there would have to be numerous other protections.
In Amendment 1, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, proposes that the board of a court martial be composed of “all ranks”. Presumably, if the amended is accepted, court martial boards would provide that members must be at least one rank superior to the accused. Interestingly, I do not have a problem with his proposal, provided that the noble Lord recognises that he is moving away from a very select panel who have already been chosen as officers and warrant officers on the basis of a whole range of qualities that other ranks do not necessarily possess. If he wants to do that, I think we will need a military jury of 12. They will still understand the military context, which is surely the reason we have a military court martial, and the increased number I am suggesting would make up for any reduction in intellectual horsepower. I would suggest that on average a military jury could be of better quality and more suited to these cases than a civilian one, and therefore an all-ranks military jury could be just as reliable as a civil jury.
However, there are some snags. I suspect that the noble Lord feels that an all-ranks board would be more forgiving and understanding. I am not convinced. For instance, I fear that an all-ranks board could be swayed by the accused appearing to be a rotten soldier when military jury members are sure that they are not. The officers on the board of a court martial would put that to one side and study it with much more intellectual rigour. I suspect that the noble Lord would still have some officers on the board or the jury, but I cannot really envisage a junior NCO asking searching questions to test an officer’s position on a case, even though a large proportion would undoubtedly be able to do so. A warrant officer certainly would, which is why we already have them on the board.
Finally I turn to the noble Lord’s amendment concerning who determines the sentence. If we went for a military jury of 12, this would be merely a consequential change. Again, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, believes that the judge advocate would be more lenient. I have to tell the Committee that I have heard, although I should not have, that on one occasion the board of a court martial in Germany dealing with an assault case regretted not being able to consider a not-guilty verdict because the accused pleaded guilty. Nevertheless, the judge advocate was recommending quite severe penalties which the board had to resist strongly. In any case, complex though the matters are, the judge advocate tells the members of the board of the court martial what their options are. The sentence is internally reviewed and the case can then be taken to the court martial appeals court, so it is not clear to me what can go wrong.
Lastly, I do not have a view on the noble Lord’s suggestions about which offences should be triable only in a civilian court.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the first two groups for debate today discuss the generality of military law. The first group relates to how an individual is found guilty and sentenced, while the second group deals with the extent and scope of the body of military law. I make the point because I take a very different view about the extent to which we should consider changing the two groups, and hence these groups of amendments. We will come on to debate the second group, but I approach the first group from the point of view of the rights of the citizen who, as a member of the Armed Forces, has become the accused. I find the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, persuasive. With that individual having committed an offence and gone into a process which is now so analogous to that of a civil court, I find quite strong the idea that the individual should have the right to a trial that is analogous to that in a civil court.
The amendments before us would, first, create more of a jury of the individual’s peers and, secondly, produce a voting system that is much closer to that of a Crown Court, which seeks unanimity. The proposals put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, are close to unanimity in their form. The reforms the noble Lord is suggesting would mean that the rights of the individual who has been accused would become increasingly similar to those of a normal civilian in a criminal case. Since 2006 we have developed the three bodies of law, brought them together and introduced civilian best practice—there is probably a better way of putting that, but it is essentially what we have done—so I find this next step very attractive.
As an alternative or as a supplement, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has suggested a minimum number of 12 on the board. That is an interesting suggestion which again is in step towards achieving similarity, and I would guess that he has suggested the figure on the basis that while such a revolutionary change might not appeal to the Government, there is also the idea of an inquiry to see how courts martial work to see if that could be a step towards reform.
Clearly, and I have sat on that side, these amendments will not work and there will be something wrong with them. However, that is irrelevant. What matters is: should we make steps in this direction using this quinquennial Act? We do it only every five years and I would find unconvincing the argument that it is not appropriate. I am putting a burden on the Government, today and perhaps in subsequent meetings and in writing, to argue the case for why we should not move in the general direction of these amendments and make the whole process for the defendant more analogous to that of a civil court.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I am very conscious of the close interest taken by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Attlee, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in the operation of the court martial and I welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters today. The first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, would amend Section 155 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which makes provision with respect to the constitution of the court martial. It provides that only officers or warrant officers may be lay members of the court martial. As the noble Lord explained, Amendment 1 would change this; it would also provide that court martial rules may provide that lay members must,
“be drawn from each and every branch of the armed services”.
The noble Lord’s next amendment, Amendment 2, would insert a new Section 155A into the 2006 Act. The effect of proposed new Section 155A would be to allow serving personnel of any rank to be lay members.
The court martial consists of a judge advocate and between three and seven lay members. Lay members of a court martial, who are also referred to as the panel or the board, have a role in relation to findings on a charge and sentencing. The lay members for any proceedings are specified by or on behalf of the court administration officer. Only commissioned officers and warrant officers may be lay members. Amendments 1 and 2 would change this, as I have said, by allowing members of the Armed Forces of any rank to be lay members.
It will not surprise the Committee to hear that I am resistant to the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has put forward. The first point I wish to make in response is that the existing rules governing lay membership of the court martial result from the fact that the court martial is part of an overall system of justice and discipline. Those rules recognise the importance of experience of command and the exercise of service discipline at a sufficiently high level to enable lay members to assess the actions of those who appear before them in the court martial in the appropriate command and disciplinary context. The role of a lay member in the court martial differs from that of a juror in a Crown Court trial. In the Crown Court, the jury’s role is limited to findings of fact: sentencing is a matter solely for the judge. In the court martial, the lay members and the judge advocate vote on the sentence. In considering sentencing, they must have regard to the maintenance of discipline, so must have a strong understanding of what things affect discipline and what things do not.
All service courts have to apply the statutory principles set out in the Armed Forces Act 2006 as to the purpose of sentencing. These are closely based on the civilian sentencing principles but include, in addition, “the maintenance of discipline” and the reduction of “service offences”—that is, both service discipline offences, such as looting or absence without leave, and criminal offences.
These principles reflect four special aspects related to the service justice system. The first is the existence of disciplinary offences unknown to the general criminal law, such as absence without leave. The second is the fact that the military context of an offence may be relevant to sentencing—for example, an assault against a superior or an inferior may make an offence more serious, and then there is the well-known naval concern about the effect on morale and discipline of mess-deck theft.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, if I may interject, I have been a president of a court martial board, I have sat on a court martial board and indeed I have been court-martialled, which most people here probably have not. What I wanted to say was that I agree completely with what the Minister has been saying, and it is really important. You could answer the question with the discipline aspect. The knowledge of what instils discipline, and what is important for it, is one of the crucial aspects of this, which makes it different from a case of someone being accused of murder, for example. So much is to do with the application of discipline.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord, as so often, has hit the nail right on the head. What he said encapsulates much of what I have been saying, and I am grateful to him.
Amendment 1 would enable court martial rules to provide that members must be drawn from each and every branch of the armed services. The current law allows for the appointment of members of any of the three services to a court martial panel. Before the 2006 Act, when each of the three services had its own separate system of service discipline, the panel almost always consisted of members of the same service as the accused. The current practice is to appoint lay members, the majority of whom come from the same service as the accused, but this is not set down in law. There is therefore nothing in law to prevent lay members in any particular case being drawn from any branch of the armed services, so I suggest it would not be necessary to amend legislation to achieve the effect required.
The composition of the panel was considered by the House of Commons Select Committee during the passage of the Bill that became the 2006 Act. General Sir Mike Jackson said to the committee at the time:
“For me the default setting would be that the soldier … on the face of it will be more comfortable being tried by members of his own Service”.
The committee considered that where a mixed panel of lay members was appointed, the senior lay member and the majority of members should come from the same service as the accused.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 3, on court martial findings and sentence, would change the law governing decisions of the court martial on findings of guilt or innocence, and sentence. The court martial system allows conviction or acquittal by a simple majority of the lay members of the court martial, with no need for a retrial in the event of a lack of unanimity or a qualified majority.
The judge advocate does not vote on findings of guilt or innocence. In the case of an equality of votes on the finding, the court must acquit the defendant. The lay members are directed, if at all possible, to reach a unanimous verdict, and to decide by a majority only if they cannot all agree. That provides a considerable safeguard against the lay members moving too easily to a majority decision. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, indicated, this is a long-established process: the service discipline Acts of the 1950s, which preceded the Armed Forces Act 2006, also provided for majority decisions at court martial. The great advantage of reaching a decision by majority is that it avoids a “hung jury”: there is no need for a retrial in the event of a lack of unanimity or a qualified majority.
The Crown Court process is that unanimity or—with the judge’s permission—a qualified majority is required for any verdict: guilty or not guilty. If unanimity—or a qualified majority—is not achieved, there is a “hung jury”, and this produces a retrial, not an acquittal. Importantly, under the existing court martial process, the accused may be convicted by a simple majority, but he or she may also be acquitted by a simple majority. In the Crown Court, most of a jury may wish to acquit an accused but cannot achieve the necessary unanimity or qualified majority, yet the accused may be retried by a new jury, who may convict.
The court martial process also has the advantage that it allows a decision to be made without it being apparent whether the verdict is unanimous or by majority. As the panel must keep its voting secret and is not required to seek the court’s permission for a majority decision, there are no lingering doubts outside the court about whether an acquittal was correct. It is for these reasons that proposals for unanimous or qualified majority verdicts in the court martial have up to now been rejected.
My noble friend Lord Attlee suggested that we could not show that the current system is satisfactory. The Government have been successful in establishing both in the European Court of Human Rights and in the civilian courts that the court martial system is in principle safe, independent and impartial. The current system for majority verdicts has been considered twice by the Court Martial Appeal Court in the last five years and was on both occasions held to be fair and safe. The Court Martial Appeal Court, which is made up of the same judges as sit in the civilian Court of Appeal, has held that there is no ground for deciding that a verdict by a simple majority of the lay members of a court martial is inherently unfair or unsafe. They noted, among other points, that the overwhelming majority of criminal trials in England and Wales are decided in magistrates’ courts and the process of simple majority verdicts is long established in those courts.
The issue of majority verdicts was raised by Sergeant Blackman—as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—in his appeal against conviction in 2014. He argued that it was discriminatory to apply trial by the court martial rather than trial by jury in the Crown Court because the court martial offered less protection to the accused than jury trial. The Court Martial Appeal Court again held that trial by the court martial on the basis of a simple majority was not unsafe or unfair; moreover it was not discriminatory.
I should add that Amendment 3 would make very different provision in the service system from that in the criminal justice system if it is the noble Lord’s intention that there must be a panel of at least five lay members in all cases in the court martial, even in cases equivalent to those which may be tried in the civilian system by a single magistrate or three lay magistrates, who may make decisions by simple majority. That difference in provision would in one respect be magnified yet further by the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Attlee to increase the size of the panel of lay members on court martial cases to 12.
Amendment 3 would also expose the deliberations of the lay members of the court martial. Proposed new subsection (3) would require the president of the lay members to state in open court the number of panel members dissenting where the majority finding is that the defendant is guilty. One important safeguard of the independence of the lay members of a court martial is the confidentiality of their deliberations. The question whether court martial verdicts are unanimous or by majority is not asked or investigated at all. This safeguard is in place to produce a fair trial process. For this reason, the Armed Forces Act 2006 makes provision about offences relating to members of the court martial and their deliberations. It contains provisions which mirror those in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which apply to jurors in the Crown Court. Under these provisions, it is an offence for a person intentionally to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of the court martial for proceedings in the course of their deliberations. It is also an offence to solicit or obtain such information. This is subject to exceptions but these are very limited. For example, the offence is not committed where information is disclosed for the purposes of an investigation into whether an offence of contempt of court has been committed by, or in relation to, a lay member.
In the Government’s view, the confidentiality of the deliberations of lay members should not be compromised unless there is a compelling case for doing so, such as for the purposes of an investigation into whether an offence of contempt of court has been committed. We are not convinced that there is a compelling case for requiring voting figures to be disclosed.
The effect of the proposed new subsection (4) would appear to be to expose whether conviction or acquittal was unanimous or by majority. In our view, it should never be known that a defendant has been acquitted by a majority decision. Consistent with the position which applies with jury verdicts in the Crown Court, we think that it would be wrong in principle for any request to be made of the lay members which identifies an acquittal by a majority where the defendant is acquitted. The acquitted defendant should not be exposed to public ignominy consequent on the recording of the fact that one or more lay members was convinced of his or her guilt. The same arguments may be made in response to my noble friend Lord Attlee’s Amendment 11, which would make provision for academic research into the workings of the board of lay members in court martial cases. We are not, therefore, convinced that there is a compelling case for compromising the confidentiality of the deliberations of lay members by allowing research of the kind proposed by this amendment.
Returning to Amendment 3, another effect of this amendment would be to change the role of the lay members in court martial trials. In response to Amendments 1 and 2, I explained how the role of a lay member in the court martial differs from that of a juror in a Crown Court trial. In the Crown Court, the jury’s role is limited to findings of fact and sentencing is a matter solely for the judge; in the court martial, the lay members and the judge advocate vote on the sentence. In the case of an equality of votes on the sentence, the judge advocate has a casting vote. The judge advocate advises the lay members on the appropriate sentencing guidelines for the offence.
Proposed new subsection (5) in Amendment 3 would change this by making the determination of sentence a matter for the judge advocate alone, although he or she would be required to consult the lay members. We would see that change as an erosion of an important difference between the civilian criminal justice system and the service justice system. The military context and service experience should be considered during sentencing as well as in findings of guilt or innocence. I submit that the input from the board members on sentencing is thus very important.
As I explained earlier, the existing provisions governing sentencing reflect the fact that the court martial is part of an overall system of justice and discipline. I spoke of how all service courts must apply statutory principles set out in the Armed Forces Act 2006 as to the purpose of sentencing. These include “the maintenance of discipline” and “the reduction of service offences”. These principles reflect special aspects relating to the service justice system, which explains why there is direct involvement of the panel in sentencing, and I remind noble Lords of those factors that I listed earlier.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the response to my Amendment 1A. On the point about maintaining discipline, I am not convinced that that would be a problem, especially if the other ranks were no lower than full corporal or equivalent, because they would have a stake in the maintenance of discipline as well. After all, a civilian jury is handling the same problem: they want to discipline other members of society for things that they have done wrong. Therefore, I do not find the maintenance of discipline—
Lord West of Spithead
It is very different from civil society. The whole structure of discipline within the military is, I am afraid, very different. That surely is one of the key points: it is people who really understand discipline, how it is applied and have knowledge of it over many years who are actually making judgments, because most of the cases relate to that disciplinary structure. I know that other amendments are looking at whether courts martial should cover other things, which might be another issue. However, in terms of discipline, civil society is very different from military society.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord—I almost said the noble and gallant Lord; he is noble and gallant, but not technically. My slight worry about the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is that a full corporal would be less understanding and perhaps take a much tougher view than an officer. I am not convinced that the noble Lord is wrong on the argument of the maintenance of discipline, but I will leave the main attack to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, because he is far more capable than I am. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his lengthy and very careful response to what I have put forward. I was very amused to learn that rules had been passed that court martial panels may be drawn from across the services. When I proposed that precise amendment to what became the 2006 Act, I was seized by three noble and gallant Lords in the corridor, one of whom said that I should be shot for making such a suggestion.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord West, would have added a keel-hauling or something of that nature.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his support for my amendments. No doubt we will have some fruitful discussion on a way forward. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that an investigation into how court martial panels deliberate would be apposite; it is a good suggestion. There are all sorts of problems around it, and if the public do not have confidence in the court martial system, which is what I believe and the thrust of what I am saying—that although I personally have confidence, the public do not—such an investigation would in one way or the other be very good.
However, the noble Earl may have misread my amendments. I am not looking for leniency. I have no reason to suppose that court martial panels that consisted of other ranks would be more lenient; I rather agree with him that they could well be tougher. What such panels would be is more understanding. They would appreciate things more. I know that the Armed Forces regard themselves as a family and I concede to what the noble Lord, Lord West, has said, but there is a gap in understanding between the other ranks and the officers of what motivates people. That is where an extended panel would be useful, helpful and more just. It is not about leniency at all. The noble Earl should not think that I am a particularly lenient person. I have sat as a judge and prosecuted many times, and leniency is certainly not a part of that.
I tend towards the thrust of the noble Earl’s comments, supported by the noble Lord, Lord West, that it is all about discipline. The fact is that if anyone is convicted at court martial of a serious offence, he is out and he loses his pension rights. It is not a question of discipline for a serious offence. As I indicated at the beginning, I have no objection to the court martial system in relation to Sections 1 to 39 of the 2006 Act, which cover mutiny, absence without leave, desertion and issues of that sort. But where I think the court martial system lacks public confidence is when it deals with other criminal offences which are normally dealt with in the Crown Court. The maintenance of discipline is not particularly apposite, in my experience. People who are convicted of serious offences, as I have said, are thrown out.
Many of the Minister’s remarks were addressed to the issue of sentencing. I do not believe that the sentences of the courts martial are particularly wayward, as we have a very good system of judge advocates who assist them in their deliberations. But the noble Earl will know that the current Judge Advocate-General has argued many times—as he did in 2006 before a committee of the House of Commons—that sentencing should be a matter for a professional judge, as judge advocates are, and not left to a panel of officers for whom it may well be their very first meeting with the criminal law in any context. They are not experts. They are appointed to a court martial board—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord West, has more experience of courts martial than most people, from all points of view—but most who sit on a panel do it perhaps once or twice. The president of the court is a more permanent official, of course, but a judge advocate is a professional judge who goes on training course after training course, sits in the Crown Court when not sitting as a judge advocate and has the fullest experience of sentencing and what is appropriate in a particular case. I do not suggest that he should sentence when uninformed himself, nor does the Judge Advocate-General, but that he should consult the members of the panel, listen to their views and take into account the maintenance of discipline, if that is what is required in the case.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am not quite sure why the panel should go outside the guidance of the judge advocate. For me, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has not produced a convincing case why it should do that. Why would it not adhere to the advice of the judge advocate because, as the noble Lord told the Committee, it is very good advice?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am not going to recount anecdotes but it is not necessary for the panel to follow the advice of the judge advocate who is sitting in a particular case if it chooses not to do so. Very often when a person is found guilty, the sentence may not be obvious. It may be a choice between various courses such as imprisonment, a sentence that does not involve imprisonment, or sometimes whether someone should go back to Colchester for retraining—a disciplinary approach—so there are different possibilities.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, surely the choice between prison and detention—in other words, “soldier on”—is a purely military one, which means that the officers on the panel are best placed to make that judgment of whether they can keep the serviceman in. In fact, some who go off for a period of detention turn out to be very good servicemen later on, as I am sure the noble Lord recognises. This is a purely military decision.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am not suggesting that the judge advocate should act entirely without the advice given to him by the panel. But where should the responsibility lie? That is the issue. I do not think that responsibility for sentencing—a highly complex and professional job for which people train for years, first as barristers or solicitors and then as judges—should be in the hands of people who have in all probability never been in a criminal court in their lives. Suddenly, they are faced with a particular problem and may have all sorts of views about it. Nor should it be thought that intellect and intelligence rest only with the officer class, as the noble Earl suggested. That is not necessarily so. Sitting on issues of fact, a panel composed across ranks would come to a better and safer conclusion which is more acceptable to the public. We cannot go on having demonstrations outside this House by present and retired members of the Armed Forces against the verdicts and findings of courts martial. You do not see that happening with Crown Courts but you see it with courts martial, and that cannot continue. I am concerned about the reputational damage to the services that such scenes show.
I will read all the detail of the Minister’s speech and come back to him about it but one or two points arose. For example, he stressed that a simple majority means that there is no need for a retrial. That may not be a very good thing. It may be that if a significant proportion of a panel hearing a case are not satisfied with the guilt of the defendant, there should be a retrial. The case should be put before the court and heard again. Retrials happen, not all that often, when juries are unable to reach a verdict in the Crown Court. They do not follow as of law; it is a question of the discretion of the prosecutor. I have stopped prosecutions after a jury had disagreed. “There is no need for a retrial” is not a mantra which sits very well with the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“Restrictions on trial by Courts Martial
(1) Section 50 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (jurisdiction of the Court Martial) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1) at end insert “save for—(a) murder;(b) manslaughter;(c) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003;(d) any offence where the courts of any part of the United Kingdom have extra-territorial jurisdiction to try, determine or punish that offence committed abroad.””
Lord Thomas of Gresford
In moving this amendment, I will couple it with consideration of Amendments 15 and 16.
Perhaps I may go first to Amendment 15, which seeks to extend extraterritorial jurisdiction in sexual offences. Since 2006, the problem concerning sexual offences has come very much more to the fore in this country and elsewhere. Some 18 months ago, I gave evidence to a committee set up by the Department of Defense in Washington where precisely this issue was being considered. My purpose there was to outline the system of court martial in this country, specifically in dealing with sexual offences. I and the Director of Service Prosecutions, and one or two other experts in the field, gave evidence about the British system. The following day, no fewer than 24 generals and above—I am not quite sure what the term is—were giving evidence to that committee. They were headed by the chief of the general staff of the United States. Unsurprisingly, the committee came out in favour of the generals and not in favour of the British system of court martial.
Sexual offences are a matter where there is not, at the moment, extraterritorial jurisdiction. Amendment 15 has been tabled simply to give to the ordinary courts in this country—the Crown Courts—the jurisdiction, if my Amendment 4 were accepted, to deal with sexual offences in this country. It has no other purpose, so the important amendment is Amendment 4.
Prior to the 2006 Act, courts martial in this country had no jurisdiction to try cases of murder or manslaughter within the United Kingdom. Courts martial could try such cases if they were sitting abroad but not in this country. One of the amendments to the system made in 2006 was to give courts martial sitting in this country jurisdiction over murder and manslaughter.
The four types of offences that I have set out in subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 4 are the most serious in the calendar. Murder and manslaughter are obvious. The offences under the Sexual Offences Act to which I have referred—I quoted specific clauses from the Sexual Offences Act 2003—are given extraterritorial jurisdiction by my Amendment 15 so that they can come before the courts of this country under Amendment 4.
Subsection (2)(d) of the proposed new clause deals with war crimes—torture and matters of that sort—where there is existing extraterritorial jurisdiction. I have been involved in a number of murder cases that have occurred abroad, in Iraq and Germany, and to my mind they have been unsatisfactory. I do not quibble with the results but I find it unsatisfactory that those trials should be by court martial. We are dealing with the most serious of cases—those that cause the greatest problems for the public—where public perception is either, if a person is acquitted, that he would be acquitted by fellow members of the armed services or, if he is convicted, that the officers have convicted him for murder whereas a British jury would not have done so. That is the thrust of the campaign about Sergeant Blackman, but there have been other cases where similar feelings have been expressed by the public.
I think that we have come to the end of trying these cases by courts martial. If a murder happens abroad—in Afghanistan, Iraq or Germany—the case is brought back to this country. Cases have not been brought back from Germany because we have been in Germany but we are retreating from there. Our Armed Forces are pulling back in November, so we can forget about that. The case of Martin, to which I referred at Second Reading, is a case in point. The 17 year-old son of a soldier—not a soldier but the son of a soldier—was brought back to this country, kept in Colchester prison and returned to be tried for murder in Germany by a court martial. Although the House of Lords Judicial Committee could not interfere as an abuse of process, as I said in my Second Reading speech, the European Court of Human Rights said that the trial was not fair. We cannot have that.
Let me go back a little. Courts martial abroad could try cases of murder and manslaughter because of the difficulty of travel. Back in the 19th century, if troops were deployed abroad, it would be quite impossible to hold somebody for trial by the civil courts here until such time as the forces returned to this country. Consequently, courts martial were necessary for trying murder and manslaughter abroad rather than having local courts do it, where the ability of the defendant to understand what was going on—never mind the quality of the justice proffered—was always an issue. That is not the case now. The practice is to bring them home and to try people accused in Iraq of murder, as in the case of Baha Mousa, which was tried in Bulford, or the case of the paratroopers who were tried at Colchester, or the Bread Basket case, which was tried in this country. The practice in serious cases is to bring people back. Where we are dealing with sexual offences, which are extremely delicate and difficult, and today attract sentences of up to 35 years, those too should be in the ordinary civil courts of this country before an ordinary jury.
I do not accept that an ordinary jury trying a military case is incapable of understanding the ethos, aura or context in which a particular offence has been committed. Juries every day may be trying a person for murder in a context with which they are completely unfamiliar. Whether it is an incident in the back streets of Birmingham or a fraud involving the City, juries cope. It is the duty of the prosecution in the case so to clarify the issues and the context that a jury is fully aware of the significance of the evidence that is put before it.
Things have changed. Juries can be really quite different. Not so long ago in Southwark Crown Court, for example, it turned out that a member of the jury was the sister of a High Court judge and of a Member of this House, and her father had been a Home Secretary. We did not know this; it just slipped out at the end of the case. Juries are an amazing cross-section of people who represent people and who each contribute to the decision that is taken. I have every confidence in Crown Court juries. Serious cases should be brought back and tried here. That is the purpose of my amendments.
However, Amendment 16 is different, as it is an alternative. If my submissions to the Committee are not acceptable to the Government, they ought to consider my Amendment 16 as an alternative. This is where a person who is alleged to have committed a service offence when on active service in operational circumstances can elect to be tried in the ordinary courts of this country. What is the purpose of that? The main purpose—really the only purpose—is that people and the media cannot criticise a Crown Court jury or, if the person has decided that he wishes to be tried by court martial but has been given the chance of a trial by the Crown Court, the system cannot be criticised for failing that individual and giving him the justice that he seeks. Amendment 16 contains an alternative approach that an accused person could elect to be tried in a civilian court. That would remove much of the sting of the criticism, which, as the Committee has heard, is my concern.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I would add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has said, mainly because he mentioned my name at Second Reading. I am afraid that this is one of two judgments for which I was responsible. He has been kind enough to say that this judgment is not subject to criticism on the grounds on which it was made. He summarised it quite accurately as the case of a civilian, a 17 year-old boy in Germany who was, I think, the son of a serviceman, and because of that was subject to military discipline in Germany. The noble Lord has narrated exactly the circumstances whereby the civilian spent time in Colchester. I think that he was sent back for trial by court martial in Germany.
My point—and the Minister may already have this in mind—is that one is dealing with a crime committed in another country. In the case of Germany, there is a very active and much-respected criminal justice system. The Germans might well have wanted to assert themselves, as this was a crime committed on their territory. However, under arrangements which we had in place, it was possible for us to say that this was a military matter which could be dealt with under our court martial system. The Germans were prepared to concede jurisdiction to the system which we had under military law.
I suspect that the situation is quite different in Iraq. I do not know what the criminal justice system is like there, but I have no doubt that we would insist that we bring people home. We do not have the same problem of maintaining a diplomatic dialogue there, which we certainly would have with the Germans if this amendment were to be carried. We must be rather cautious with this amendment in considering the various jurisdictions in which offences may be committed abroad. We would need be absolutely sure that these jurisdictions were prepared to concede jurisdiction to us under the extraterritorial system, when they could perfectly well assert their own right to try a case before their own civilian courts.
I dare say that the Minister has this carefully in mind but it seemed, recalling as best I can the circumstances of Martin, that that was part of the background. Of course I cannot take anything away from or add anything to the judgment which I wrote, but I think that it is proper to say that when I first saw the case I was taken aback by the fact that this boy was going to be tried by a court martial. It seemed to be a rather extraordinary thing to happen. However, having studied the legislation and been informed about the background, in the end I was satisfied that it was proper that the court martial should be allowed to proceed. There is this additional element to the issue, which I do not think that the noble Lord touched on in his address but which I respectfully suggest we should bear in mind in considering whether the line that he is urging us to take is a sound one.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that Martin could have been tried in this country and that it was not just an arrangement between the German authorities and the British military authorities that caused his trial to be in Germany? I think that it was a decision of the Attorney-General.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Of course we had extraterritorial jurisdiction, but the fact that the crime was committed in Germany was an important factor in deciding the proper course for bringing the case before a tribunal to try the boy for the offence. One has to be careful about the local jurisdiction; I seek to emphasise that point.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for Amendment 4, which stems from my view that I see the composition of the board of courts martial as much more to do with discipline and military things. Clearly with some of these very serious crimes, jurisdiction is very important. I am not clear how that could be clarified to make sure that things do not slip through the net because of it. However, the other aspect is perception. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, talked about public perceptions of courts martial. I think that there is also the perception of the military about the way in which they are put on trial. If we went down this route mitigation would have to be very clearly put, particularly when in what one might loosely call a war zone where there has been fighting and nation building, because the circumstances in which something like the Baha Mousa case happens are different from the normal civilian understanding. We would have to be absolutely certain that we were able to get that sort of proper mitigation into the civil court. However, I have great sympathy with Amendment 4, because some of these things should not generally be tried by court martial nowadays.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, as I said earlier, I see this debate as being in two parts, of which this is the second part. The development of service law in this country has been going on for several hundred years and we have seen important movements in the past 10 years with the 2006 Act and now with these proposals. I am unsympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, proposes in this area, because it goes too deep into the body of military law. There is presumably an argument that you do not need military law on any offence that is covered by an equivalent piece of civil law, but we are not there yet in the minds of either the public or the military. We are on a journey and I think that we are at the right place in that journey, so to carve these offences out of the scope of military law at this point would be wrong. I shall read with great care the speeches that have been made and listen with great care to the Minister’s response. We will ponder on those views but, as a generality, the scope of military law is probably right at this time. I repeat that we should address the courts martial system to make the judgment process analogous but leave the scope substantially as it is.
Earl Howe
My Lords, these further amendments address other aspects of the service justice system about which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is exercised. I agree that it is right that this Committee should engage in close and careful scrutiny and assure ourselves of the rationale that underpins the system.
Amendment 4 would limit the jurisdiction of the court martial. It would prevent the court martial from trying certain offences: murder; manslaughter; the wide range of sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and any offence committed overseas that a civilian criminal court in the United Kingdom has jurisdiction to try.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, explained that his intention with Amendment 15 is to extend the jurisdiction of civilian criminal courts in England and Wales by giving them jurisdiction to try members of the Armed Forces and civilians subject to service discipline for acts overseas that, had they been committed here, would have constituted sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Committee may be aware that service courts are able to exercise jurisdiction in respect of acts overseas. Section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 provides that a member of the Armed Forces is guilty of an offence under service law if they do an act outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence under the law of England and Wales were it done here.
Amendment 16 would give members of the Armed Forces accused of committing certain crimes overseas a right to elect whether to be tried by the court martial or by a civilian criminal court. The crimes in question are those that the civilian criminal courts may try even if the events in question took place overseas. Those offences include murder and, although the noble Lord explained that this was an alternative to his previous proposal, would also include sexual offences if Amendment 15 were accepted as well.
I note one point in passing. Amendment 16 does not appear to propose that members of the Armed Forces should have a right to elect civilian criminal trial in respect of conduct in the United Kingdom or in respect of conduct overseas other than on active service in operational circumstances, yet it is not immediately apparent why such cases should be treated differently.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, may not be too surprised to hear that the Government do not support these amendments, which imply that there are problems with the court martial system. Yet the service justice system has been scrutinised by the UK courts and by Strasbourg, and has been held to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights for both investigations and prosecutions within the UK and abroad, where the civilian police do not have jurisdiction.
As regards the implication about the competence of the service police and prosecutors, the service police are trained and able to carry out investigations into the most serious offences, with members of the Special Investigations Branch having to pass the serious crime investigation course before being selected for that unit. In addition, selected members of the service police attend a range of specialist and advanced detective training at either the Defence College of Policing and Guarding or externally, with the College of Policing or training providers accredited by the college.
At the Service Prosecuting Authority, prosecutors are trained to effectively prosecute serious cases. For example, prosecution of serious sexual offences requires attendance on the CPS rape and serious sexual offences specialist training course, and the SPA ensures that decisions on charging in such cases are taken only by prosecutors who have completed that training. The Government believe that the service justice system is capable of dealing with the most serious of offences and should be able to continue to do so. In the case of offences which both the civilian criminal courts and service courts have jurisdiction to try, it is recognised that it is necessary for prosecutors to consider in each case whether the offence is more appropriately tried in the civilian criminal courts or in a service court. This applies not only to offences committed overseas in respect of which the civilian criminal courts have jurisdiction but to offences committed in the United Kingdom.
The existing protocol between service and civilian prosecutors recognises that some cases are more appropriately dealt with in the service system and some more appropriately in the civilian system, particularly those with civilian victims. The principles of the protocol were approved by the Attorney-General for England and Wales, and by the Ministry of Justice. The protocol recognises that any offence can be dealt with by the service authorities. The main principle in deciding who acts is whether the offence has any civilian context, especially a civilian victim. The protocol therefore provides that cases with a civilian context are dealt with by the civilian criminal justice system. However, where a case has a service context, it is important that the service justice system—which is specifically constructed to deal with that unique service dimension—is able to manage the case in question. But were we to create a right to elect of the kind contained in Amendment 16, I submit that it could undermine the service justice system, as an accused could make an election which would see the types of cases which civilian and service prosecutors currently consider should be dealt with in the service system—because of their service context—instead having to be dealt with by the civilian criminal courts.
The noble Lord, Lord West, referred to the importance of mitigation in certain cases. Partly for that reason but also for others, many cases which concern conduct outside the UK will have a service context such that both service and civilian prosecutors would consider that they would be more appropriately tried in the service system. That is significant because of the key point that I made on the previous group of amendments: court martial is part of an overall system of justice and discipline, and the existing provisions governing sentencing in the court martial reflect this.
As I mentioned earlier, all service courts have to apply statutory principles set out in the Armed Forces Act 2006 as to the purpose of sentencing. These are closely based on the civilian sentencing principles but include, in addition, “the maintenance of discipline” and the reduction of “service offences”. These principles reflect special aspects related to the service justice system, including those factors that I touched on earlier and shall repeat: first, in service courts the military context of an offence may be relevant to sentencing, and I mentioned an assault against a superior or an inferior; secondly, in service courts a heavier sentence may be justified by reference to the fact that the offender is in the Armed Forces, and I mentioned a drugs offence in that context; and, thirdly, certain penalties are available only to service courts, requiring an assessment of whether they are appropriate from a broadly disciplinary point of view—for example, service detention or dismissal. Allowing a case with a purely service context to be dealt with in the civilian system on the election of an accused therefore risks undermining the system of justice and discipline in the Armed Forces.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am most grateful again to the Minister for his careful outline of the Government’s position. I shall take up one point about the right to elect. At the moment, as I recollect, a serving soldier has the right to opt for trial by court martial as opposed to being dealt with by his CO—I have some support from my rear on that proposition—so the concept of opting for one mode of trial rather than another is already in the service discipline system.
The Minister referred to the limited scope of Amendment 16. It is confined—I checked the wording myself a moment ago—to,
“a person subject to service law”,
committing an offence or alleged to have done so,
“when on active service in operational circumstances”.
It would not cover the situation of a soldier who committed an offence who was not in such circumstances. For example, I do not think that that description would apply to anyone who is currently serving in Germany.
Having mentioned Germany, I refer to the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to say that yes, there have been agreements on jurisdiction where the Army is abroad, but they are coming back. The situation is quite different. We will not have all the substrata of support and so on in Germany that we have now. I imagine that these agreements will come to an end—is it November of this year when the forces are returning from Germany?—so I suggest that is not a point against the proposition that I am putting forward. So far as the other matters are concerned, they again require me to read what the Minister has said and before I do that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Touhig
“Requirement to publish statistics on sexual assault and rape
(1) Each service police force must collect and publish annually anonymised statistics on the number of allegations of sexual assault and rape made by and against members of the armed forces.(2) The Director of Service Prosecutions must collect and publish annually anonymised statistics on the number of cases involving allegations of sexual assault and rape made by and against members of the armed forces, including but not necessarily limited to—(a) the number of cases referred from the service police forces;(b) how many of these cases were prosecuted; and(c) how many convictions were secured.”
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, at Second Reading I raised the Government’s intention to allow women to serve in front-line roles. I believe that the Government’s announcement was an expression of support for the wider equalities agenda but we will debate that issue later in Committee. At this stage, I would say only that if we are serious about equality then we must have equality in the Armed Forces, too. Part of that equality agenda must surely be accepting that we have a responsibility to provide the women who serve, or who may be thinking of serving, in our Armed Forces with the sort of information that this amendment would afford them. No woman—or man for that matter—joining our Armed Forces should have any doubt that sexual misbehaviour of any kind will be punished.
Not a day goes by when cases of sexual assault and rape are not reported in the media. Whether here or abroad, our daily news digest reports on horrors of this nature. But all too often cases go unreported and the victims—mainly women, but not exclusively so—have nowhere to turn to help release themselves from the pain, horror and suffering that they have endured. Because of the system of military discipline, routine and command structures that necessarily exists in the Armed Forces, there is a special need to be vigilant here when seeking to prevent such gross and horrible acts. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and shrug our shoulders as if nothing can be done. When confronted with such a major issue, how often have each of us heard it said: “It’s gone on for ever and there’s nothing to be done about it”?
Such a view of sexual assault, sexual harassment and even worse is not atypical when set in the context of many large organisations, whether military or civilian, but we in the Committee have a chance to do something about that now. Thankfully, we are more alert as a society and not starting from scratch now. It would not be proper to say much here relating to what happened years back at Deepcut. However, I am not alone here in having read some of the recent press reports of evidence given at the inquest into the death of Private Cheryl James and being horrified by what I read. If we can in humility set that aside for the moment, it is right to do so. But the plain truth is that rape and sexual assault are a worry in the Armed Forces today, as was highlighted in the Ministry of Defence’s Sexual Harassment Report 2015.
Sexual harassment in the Armed Forces is an issue, particularly for servicewomen. Our amendment, which I am delighted to see has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, would, if accepted, require the Government to publish statistics on sexual assault and rape in the Armed Forces. The best weapon to use against those who commit such acts is the glare of publicity, which can be brought about only by transparency.
I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for meeting my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and me to discuss this matter. We welcome the explanation that he and his officials afforded us but we were not convinced that his department is doing enough. We were not convinced that the present data on sexual harassment in the Armed Forces are reliable or being comprehensively collected. More than that, when civilian police investigate allegations of sexual harassment and rape, they are not required to record whether the alleged victim or perpetrator is a serving member of the Armed Forces, yet that is crucial to putting in place within the forces a mechanism to prevent such acts. I shall give an example.
We know that alcoholic excess is a major factor in domestic abuse and wife-beating. How do we know that? We know due to the simple expedient of recording the fact that a person involved in making such an assault was under the influence of drink. It is often said—is it not?—“If it’s not broken, don’t mend it”. That is common sense, but to get there in the first place we have to realise that something is broken. How can we combat this problem in the Armed Forces if we do not know how widespread it is? To know that, we need to keep records and publish data. Having read the Hansard covering the debate on this matter in the other place, I am not convinced that the Government took this issue seriously enough. I have no doubt that that will not happen in this place.
During Committee, the Minister, Mr Lancaster, confirmed that the Service Police Crime Bureau kept records of rape and sexual assault cases that had been made known to it, but how are they made public? Initially, the Minister seemed content that it was being done in response to Parliamentary Questions and freedom of information requests, with the information being subsequently uploaded to the Ministry of Defence online publications system. That is simply not good enough, and that is the reason for this amendment. In truth, I must be fair to Mr Lancaster, who said:
“Let me be clear that I want to explore how we can be more proactive in releasing this information”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/15; col. 1622.]
Those words were spoken on 16 December last year, so the Government have had time to explore how to be more proactive in releasing this information. I certainly look forward to the noble Earl’s reply.
There are twin objectives behind Amendment 6. The first is to ensure that no unnecessary barrier is in place to deny a complainant justice and the second is to protect the good name of our Armed Forces. It is no easy task for a person in authority to deal with allegations of rape and serious sexual assault. More than that, dealing with allegations of rape and serious sexual assault requires a level of expertise—in truth, an expertise that is gained only by dealing with such complaints on a regular basis. Most commanding officers do not have to deal with such matters, and their lack of knowledge and expertise might affect their decisions. In the event that a commanding officer did not appropriately investigate allegations, damage could be done to the reputation of the Armed Forces.
A system needs to be in place that respects the chain of command within the Armed Forces but is also robust and in line with what individuals expect in civilian life. I do not think that the Government see a need for this amendment. Their line is that victims of sexual assault can bypass their commanding officer and go straight to the police, should they wish. However, there are issues with this approach. It is factually true that service men and women are trained from day one to respect the institutions of the Armed Forces, including the chain of command, and this very structure could deter victims of sexual assault from going straight to the civilian police to obtain an investigation. Our Amendment 6 would help to resolve this. In the mean time, I beg to move Amendment 5.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 5 and 6, which are designed to clarify and reduce levels of rape and sexual assault in the Armed Forces. Fundamentally, I believe that the rights of service men and women are just as deserving of protection as civilians, for whose rights I have campaigned for many years. It is essential that independence and fairness for our troops are at the heart of the military justice system, but the reality is far from that aspiration, and I hope that I will be able to illustrate that.
I repeat the words said only eight months ago by General Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the General Staff, that the Army has,
“an overly sexualised culture in which inappropriate behaviour is deemed acceptable”.
Those words illustrate the problem that many women and men in the Army face. Those words are appreciated, however, as is General Sir Nick Carter’s campaign against rape, with a display of hard-hitting posters that are imaginative, and with messages that are bold, and ensure that all service personnel understand the concept of consent. However, the evidence shows that over the years there has been little improvement, perhaps because the current position in both recording the evidence and the determination of rape and sexual assault is clearly flawed. That situation would be improved by the implementation of both these amendments.
The response to a freedom of information request two years ago showed that in the previous three years military personnel had made more than 200 allegations of rape and other sexual offences against their colleagues. Seventy-five allegations of rape and 150 of sexual assault were made to the Military Police between 2011 and 2013. There were 25 rape allegations in 2013, 24 in 2012 and 26 in 2011—consistent figures throughout. Five servicemen were convicted of rape and 22 of sexual assault. But even getting such information may not be possible in the future if the Government abolish the FoI process, which they seem to be seeking to do.
The 2015 Ministry of Defence report on sexual harassment gives much more detail. It says that women had received unwanted comments about their appearance, body or sexual activities, unwelcome sexual gestures, had been subject to attempts to touch them, and that 10% of the women interviewed had received a request for a sexual relationship. But how accurate are those figures? There are clearly questions about the comprehensiveness and reliability of the data collected, as my noble friend Lord Touhig said. For instance, allegations of sexual assault can be investigated by a commanding officer, the relevant service police force or a local police force. Home Office authorities are not required to record whether an alleged victim or perpetrator of a sexual assault is a serving member of the Armed Forces. This means that the Armed Forces do not possess even basic evidence about the extent of sexual assault or rape within the services. Civilian police forces have to collect and collate such evidence in a consistent and orderly way, so why does this not apply to the military? Without a central register published annually, it is impossible to follow trends and patterns and determine whether improvements are being made. I fail to understand why this proposal might be rejected, not least as the Minister in the Commons said that the system needs to be more robust, as has been said. It would be interesting to know what actions have been taken since that statement was made to set the process going to achieve the aim of making it more robust.
On Amendment 6, a commanding officer has broad discretion to decide whether to investigate allegations of sexual assault or whether to refer them to the relevant police force. The commanding officer has to refer cases in line with the offences listed in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but, strangely, that legislation explicitly excludes for referral sexual assault, voyeurism and sexual activity in a public lavatory. This means that, if notified of an allegation of sexual assault, a commanding officer is not necessarily required to refer the matter to the police.
Sexual assault covers a wide breadth of sexual acts, some of which may seem less serious to the commanding officer but not necessarily so to the victim, and which, if ignored, may develop into a more serious situation. Commanding officers in the Armed Forces are men and women of skill, professionalism and integrity but that does not mean that they have the same levels of specialist investigatory skills as those who have the necessary professional expertise. It is important that those who investigate, prosecute and manage these processes are professionally trained and have the skills to deal with complex cases and, very often, emotional situations.
Relevant to both the data and the process is the number of victims who do not come forward because they do not wish to be investigated by their commanding officer. Evidence shows that they are discouraged from making a formal written complaint, or that they are told they will be treated better in return for a sexual relationship. One in 10 women who had upsetting experiences indicated that they did not report it because they particularly did not want to report it to their specific commanding officers, having been told by others that it would have an effect on their careers or they could be subjected to negative treatment. That is not a very good background against which to encourage women to take these cases forward.
Finally, I refer to a case that gives an example of the hidden culture in the Armed Forces and illustrates so clearly to me why Amendment 6 is necessary. I have concentrated so far on sexual assaults against women, but Ministry of Defence data following another FoI request reveal that male rape is common in the UK Army. In 2013, three rapes and 22 sexual assaults were carried out against men in the UK military forces. Since then, there have been a further 25 assaults, but these figures relate only to information gathered by the Military Police, meaning that the real numbers could be much higher. The ministry could not say whether anyone had been prosecuted for the assaults disclosed in the latest data.
All this evidence proves what has been known for a very long time: that there is a deep-seated culture, as described by General Sir Carter. Surely it is time that the Government legislate to show that they are genuinely concerned to improve what is a truly dreadful situation. Perhaps the Minister can give an explanation for why the Government have been so reluctant to do so in the past. I hope he will not take the same view today.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 5. In the late 1980s, I was dragged from my destroyer by the First Sea Lord and tasked with doing a study into whether women should serve on the front line at sea. Being an ambitious officer, I went to see the First Sea Lord and asked him what result he wanted from that study—but he told me that I was to do a proper study. I spent six months doing it, and I learned a great deal. At the end of it, I concluded that women could serve in all jobs at sea, that there was no reason why they could not do that on the front line and that it was in the interests of the Navy. I thought that that would ruin my career—my wife said that I could run a well woman clinic if things went really wrong —but in fact it did not affect my career that badly.
What I failed to understand was the level of sexual predation that might result from this. I did talk with other navies around the world but I have say that I did not talk to the Army; it was all naval. I have been really quite shocked by the level of sexual predation which one is aware of now. It is necessary to expose what is happening to make it clear to people that things have to change. It is only by laying down the cases that have happened that this will be thrown into the public eye and the eye of the military, and then action can be taken. I am not so convinced by Amendment 6, but Amendment 5 makes a lot of sense.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for moving this amendment, which concerns a very serious and important issue. He mentioned Deepcut. I urge all Members of the Committee to get the Blake report on Deepcut, which was commissioned by the last Government, as we may have forgotten the background.
I am not convinced by the new clause proposed in Amendment 5, and I hope that the Minister shares that position. However, I would like to ask the Minister about service police records. We are all aware that there will be serial offenders who are posted from unit to unit. I would even dare to suggest that if a commanding officer knows that someone is “a bit dodgy” for one reason or another, they might rather get rid of them, and so send them off to another unit. Then, that same serviceperson becomes a problem in another unit. If the service police were carefully recording complaints against a serviceman—unit 1 gets a complaint; unit 2 gets a complaint—while it may be only slightly inappropriate conduct, there would be a record so that if something serious happens, and the serviceman already has a record of minor offences, you can be pretty sure that there is a problem. If someone has been serving for 15 years and there is not the slightest suggestion of a problem, you might take a slightly different view. My issue is this: are the service police recording every single complaint against a serviceman? I can assure the Committee that I have seen this in the reserves where we had a problem with a junior officer and it turned out that he had had a problem in another unit as well.
Members of the Committee have suggested that the Armed Forces have a problem. I do not deny that there is a problem, but my question for the Minister is this. Is it a bigger problem in the Armed Forces than it is in the civilian world, such as in industry, for instance?
Lord West of Spithead
I am sorry, but surely that has nothing to do with it. We have to get it right within the Armed Forces, have we not? It is only by exposing it that this can be dealt with. When I did my study, I was shocked at the level of this sort of thing going on in banks. I visited banks and large retail outlets and I was absolutely appalled and shocked by it. I must have been naive being stuck at sea. You might think that sailors are not naive, but my goodness me, it was quite a shock. Surely we have to look at what is right within the military.
Earl Attlee
Once again I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that we have to address our problems and deal with them vigorously. I want just to suggest that we ought to be able to compare how the Armed Forces do with the rest of industry. Although we have a problem that we want to and should deal with, the statistics may not actually be as bad as we think they are. We need to compare. That is not a reason for not doing anything about the problem; far from it.
Amendment 6 seeks to take the matter out of the hands of the commanding officer. I agree with this proposal, although I am at variance with the noble Lord, Lord West, on it. These matters are extremely difficult to determine in terms of what has been going on. As he suggested, commanding officers are not well equipped to deal with them. You might think that someone is a really good person, but then you are disappointed to find out that they are possibly offending in this way, so I do not have a problem with this proposal. I inherited a case of sexual assault and it was exceptionally difficult for me to deal with. I did not have to determine the matter, but I had to manage the aftermath. I heard the two sides of the argument and I was ill equipped to determine it. The Minister should consider Amendment 6 very carefully.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has made me think about two other instances that perhaps I should refer to. One is the fact that we are not talking about and cannot relate in any way to industry. People in the forces live in a closed environment. I shall give an example which has been made public. One woman was sent to an island with 27 men, and that woman was raped constantly on that island. What kind of situation is that? This has nothing to do with working in a bank or anywhere else; it is a completely different environment.
I am also reminded of the fact that the MoD has said that some 20 soldiers who are still serving in the Army are on the sex offenders register, and in each case they have been sent to a different unit, which reflects the point made earlier about people being transferred from one unit to another. That in itself seems an absolute disgrace. The department has also stated that a number of unknown people are in the Army who have been convicted but who are not on the sex offenders register, so they cannot be identified. This is not a good situation for men or women in the Armed Forces to have to put up with.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s final point really follows on from what I was saying about the records of dodgy servicemen.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, my first point was going to be the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, has just made. It is not helpful to compare with other sectors. All our Armed Forces pretty much live cheek by jowl with each other. That is not the case elsewhere: if you work in a bank, you go home at five and come back in at nine. It might tell you something but it is not hugely helpful.
I am happy to support Amendments 5 and 6. There are absolutely no circumstances where either rape or sexual assault are acceptable—we have heard talk today about many high-profile cases that are now in the public domain so I shall not go any further there—and we know that at the very highest level the service chiefs would agree with that statement. Last summer the MoD launched the “Don’t Kid Yourself” campaign, so there is acknowledgement and awareness. However, the real commitment at the top has to be to changing attitudes as well as behaviour, which will take time. It takes evidence to check progress and offer confidence.
The point was made that it is not only women who can be victims, and there is possibly a different reaction to men who have been the victims of sexual assault or rape from the reaction to women in the same circumstances. In the service environment, men might feel shame in a slightly different way from the way that women might feel it, and that needs to be factored in as well. A parent would need reassurance that their son or daughter was joining an organisation committed to the eradication of sex offences. Recruits and serving members of the Armed Forces need that reassurance too.
I turn to Amendment 6. To make all feel confident—and I think this amendment is about confidence—there should be no discretion for a CO to refer this to the relevant police force. They should not handle it themselves. Sexual assault is a crime, as is rape, and if there is any doubt it is far better for this to be investigated by the police, who have the experience, rather than a CO, who does not. It has been said to me that COs have been sent on training to do this. I wonder, were I or noble Lords’ sons or daughters to be raped, would we want the case to be investigated by someone who had done some training a year or so before but had not seen a case in the intervening time? We need someone investigating these cases who has not only training but experience and sensitivity. These are very sensitive issues, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made that point as he was explaining his personal experience.
To keep records and publish statistics annually on these cases would enable the Government, the public and members of the Armed Forces to measure progress. It would not be just another task to do; it would enable us to measure progress and to highlight any areas of concern. The Minister in the other place, Mark Lancaster, said during the passage of the Bill:
“I am determined to make the data that we publish robust, consistent and accessible. To that end, I am actively considering how best to publish the data as an official statistic”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/15; col. 1623.]
Has the Minister’s honourable friend finished his considerations yet? What format might he use?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I am moved to join in this debate by the recitation by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, of the figures for the past few years, which amount to hundreds. I should tell the Committee that in the investigation I was involved with in Washington in America, to the best of my recollection it was estimated that 32,000 sexual offences were committed in the United States armed forces, regarding which there were 5,000 complaints and prosecutions brought in the hundreds, with convictions a lower figure. It was a matter of very high political concern. There is a campaign regarding this by Senator Gillibrand, the junior senator for New York, assisted by Mr Ted Cruz, who has achieved some notoriety lately. So there are a Democrat and an ultra-right-winger and others all involved in dealing with this dreadful problem that they are facing. The issue really is the role of the CO in sexual offences, the very issue that Amendment 6 raises. I strongly urge it upon the Minister that sexual offences should be taken out of the purview of the CO altogether.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I understand the concerns which underlie these amendments. However, the case that I shall put to the Committee will show that I am not convinced that it is necessary or appropriate to make changes. The first amendment in this group would create a legal obligation to publish data about allegations of sexual offences. It would impose an obligation which, it is worth saying, is not currently imposed on other civilian authorities, although they do publish such information on a regular basis.
It may be helpful if I briefly set out the existing arrangements within the service justice system for the collection and publication of crime statistics. The Service Police Crime Bureau records, for all three services, allegations of rape and sexual assault that are made to the service police. That information is released regularly in response to Parliamentary Questions and freedom of information requests. In the case of the latter, the information is uploaded to the MoD’s online publication scheme where it can be freely accessed. Noble Lords have said that they do not regard that in itself as sufficient, but let me continue as there is more to say on this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that the system of recording offences needs to be made more robust. In an effort to improve our recording of crime, the Service Police Crime Bureau has been liaising with the Home Office police forces to analyse their crime-recording practices and rules. I am pleased to say that, as a result, the bureau is to establish a post of crime registrar, similar to that found in Home Office police forces, with a remit to scrutinise and audit the recording of crimes on the service police investigation management system. That will undoubtedly improve the accuracy and consistency of the information and, in due course, lead to the production of useful management information about patterns and trends. I very much agree with the argument that it is highly desirable to have an accurate picture of the extent of sexual offending.
My noble friend Lord Attlee asked whether the service police are recording every case referred to them. I will reflect on that issue but, in doing so, I suggest that we need to bear in mind that an unproven complaint should not blight a person’s career. This is a very sensitive issue and it is one on which I suggest that we must be very careful.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am not suggesting putting the information anywhere on the service record—in the Army Personnel Centre for instance. I am suggesting that the service police, once that they have had an allegation against a particular serviceman, should keep a file on that serviceman so that if they get a second complaint in a different location, that will have a bearing on the credibility of that second complaint.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
The noble Earl has talked about the question of allegation, which is always a problem. Would he be prepared to say that a comprehensive list should be produced of the number of proven cases within the Armed Forces?
Earl Howe
I shall address both points. I shall certainly factor in the last point that my noble friend made about the need to have, where this occurs, a record of a pattern of behaviour to guide the authorities if need be.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, the Service Prosecuting Authority records, for each year, the number of cases referred to it, the number of cases in which charges are preferred and the number of cases where a conviction is secured. The Military Court Service publishes on the internet, on a regular basis, details of every case heard at courts martial, including offences, outcomes and punishments. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence already collects and publishes a range of information about sexual offending within the Armed Forces.
However, I do not want to sound in the least complacent on this. As my honourable friend Mr Lancaster made clear in another place, we recognise that we could improve on what we are currently doing. The MoD is now working to ensure that the necessary policies and procedures can be put in place so that the finished product meets the necessary standards of an official statistic. It is a question of ensuring that any statistics that are published can be relied upon to present a true and consistent picture.
Amendment 5 would impose a legal obligation to publish data about allegations of sexual offences. I am more than a little concerned about that because of the point that I made earlier about unfounded allegations but also because no such obligation is imposed on civilian authorities. One has to ask why the military context should be any different.
Amendment 6 would remove from commanding officers any discretion as to whether to report to the service police allegations of the sexual offences to which the amendment relates. Those offences are sexual assault, exposure, voyeurism and sexual activity in a public lavatory. The amendment would mean that the commanding officer was required, by law, to report to the service police every allegation which would indicate to a reasonable person that one of these offences may have been committed. This obligation would apply regardless of the wishes of the victim.
I do not think that this amendment is necessary and I shall explain why. Commanding officers are under a statutory duty under the Armed Forces Act 2006 to ensure that allegations of any offences, including those covered by the amendment, are handled appropriately. The commanding officer’s duties in this respect are crystal clear. If a commanding officer becomes aware of an allegation or circumstances which would indicate to a reasonable person that any service offence may have been committed by someone under his command, he must ensure that it is investigated “appropriately”. The commanding officer must therefore report an allegation to the service police if this would be appropriate.
However, if a commanding officer becomes aware of an allegation or circumstances which would indicate to a reasonable person that a Schedule 2 offence had or may have been committed, he must report this to the service police. Schedule 2 offences are those inherently serious offences listed in Schedule 2 to the Armed Forces Act 2006. Almost all offences under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 are Schedule 2 offences, including rape, assault by penetration and a large number of other serious sexual offences. This amendment would make sexual assault, exposure, voyeurism and sexual activity in a public lavatory Schedule 2 offences. A commanding officer would therefore have no discretion as to whether to report allegations to the service police.
In considering this issue, it is important to remember that before a commanding officer takes command he has training to teach him how to exercise his powers under the Armed Forces Act 2006, and he has access to legal advice 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
I should also mention that comprehensive guidance on handling serious offences, including sexual offences, has been issued to commanding officers, as has a comprehensive guide for victims of such offences. It is also important to note that there is a specific requirement in the Manual of Service Law that a commanding officer is to take legal advice where the offences covered by this amendment are alleged. The manual makes specific mention of these offences in the section on deciding how to investigate. It also states that there is to be a presumption that the commanding officer should normally ensure that allegations of such offences are reported to the service police.
Viscount Slim (CB)
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that when we were in a committee trying to put all three manuals of service law into one manual, many of us were worried that we were removing the power of the commanding officer in a number of instances. We were all thankful that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, sat in on just about every sitting of the committee. We saw the demeaning of a commanding officer taking place in some of the discussions.
There is no doubt that there is a certain wish among many politicians to civilianise the military, and I have been worried about that in one or two things that have been said today. If you do not think that a commanding officer is doing his job properly, then, as the Minister said, you lay more and more on him so that he does do his job properly. I myself dealt with a case where I was very perturbed by what was happening. I merely picked up the telephone and asked the special investigation services and the Military Police to be in my office at 10 o’clock the next morning, and the whole thing was sorted out.
I ask noble Lords to be very careful before more powers are taken away and the position of the commanding officer is demeaned. I put it that a commanding officer can do his job, and if the military do not think he is doing it properly, certain things that the noble Earl has described can be put in place.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, legally everyone has a commanding officer; someone somewhere is the commanding officer. The Minister said that commanding officers are given training. I agree that they are given a significant amount of training and that they have a significant amount of experience. The problem is that the powers of a commanding officer can be delegated to someone who has not had that training. Their commanding officer might be only a major and might be deployed to a desert island. That has happened to me. When I deployed on Operation TELIC, my commanding officer was the commanding officer of 1 UK Armoured Division and Signal Regiment. I never met him; I did not know him from Adam. I would suggest that many soldiers do not know their commanding officers from Adam because they normally deal with their officer commanding.
The Committee needs to understand the difficulties faced by a junior serviceman. In these situations they are often making a complaint about someone who is their immediate superior, and perhaps even in their chain of command. They might rustle up the courage to make a complaint, but when they find themselves being interviewed by the company sergeant major, who they might in any case have an issue with for other reasons, they may quickly withdraw the allegation even though it is well founded. I have to say that I am not absolutely convinced by the Minister’s response and we shall need to return to this issue at a later stage.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, we have had a good short debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, but I have to say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I am so disappointed with his response. My noble friend Lady Gould spoke from a lifetime of experience of campaigning on matters of this kind, and some of the statistics that she afforded us are staggering. She mentioned that 20 soldiers are on the sex offenders register. Is that uploaded on to the MoD website, in which the noble Earl seems to put a great deal of faith? I do not know, so perhaps he can enlighten us.
My noble friend Lord West of Spithead spoke with the authority of experience as someone who has faced up to this, not quite realising what a big problem it is, and learned a great deal. He said that we have to change, and that is coming from someone who has served his country heroically and has taken great responsibility for the people under his command. He believes that we really do need to do something about this.
I could not improve on the remarks just made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. There will be inhibitions and people will not take things forward because of all sorts of consequences that they might face, so it simply is not good enough. In his earlier remarks he also asked the Minister whether the service police are recording all complaints. I hope that he will be able to tell us at some stage whether that is the case. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, was spot on. Parents need to be reassured. Later in Committee we will be considering issues affecting youngsters under the age of 18 joining the Armed Forces.
Lord Touhig
I appreciate that, and am grateful to the Minister for clarifying it. However, he spoke earlier about all this information being uploaded to the MoD’s website, and my point is whether or not that is on there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, talked about the training of officers, but that is not an answer. Many of us have been involved in training, in all our walks of life, but practical experience shows that you need exposure to deal with problems like this, and the evidence suggests that commanding officers do not have that kind of experience and so are not always the right people. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that the United States is looking at this matter, so it is not just something peculiar to our country.
The Minister said that he was not convinced that these amendments were necessary, saying that their provisions do not exist in a civilian context. However, I think we all agree that the Armed Forces is not like any civilian organisation. When you join the British Armed Forces, you are joining an organisation in which you might put your life on the line—it is not like joining Tesco or Barclays Bank. The circumstances and living arrangements are different: they do not go home at 5 pm; they live as a community. We cannot really compare the two.
The Minister also said that some progress had been made and that there is to be a crime registrar. Is this another bureaucrat? How much will it cost? Why not just publish the information? If it is there, why not report it? If the information is being uploaded to the MoD’s website, why not put it in a report? It seems to me that this is another way of pushing things aside and not really facing up to the difficulties. We have a duty of care for the people who serve in our Armed Forces, and I am sure we all recognise that.
The Minister said that he had certain doubts about removing the CO’s ability not to progress a complaint. I think that there are real problems here. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, feels that this might be perceived to be an attack on the chain of command. That is not the case at all: we have to respect the fact that we need a thorough and well-organised chain of command. However, if you are a “victim”, you are not in a position, as the noble Viscount was able to do, to call somebody in and get the CO sorted out because he has decided that he is not going to progress a particular complaint. There is going to be real disappointment that the Government do not feel able to publish the information that they are collecting. If it is on the website, why not produce it as a report? At the very least, I had hoped that the Minister would have said that although there are deficiencies in these amendments, the Government will go away and see whether they can come forward with their own amendment, having worked with people on all sides to make a better job if it, rather than just shutting it down. I shall not press the amendments, but I tell noble Lords that we will come back to them.
Lord Touhig
“Requirement to publish statistics on employment discrimination against reservists
(1) Each Commanding Officer must collect statistics on how many reservists have reported employment discrimination in the workplace as a result of being part of the reserve forces.(2) The Ministry of Defence must collect and publish annually anonymised statistics on the number of complaints regarding employment discrimination received from reservists who have been discriminated against as a result of their service as a reservist.”
Lord Touhig
My Lords, we owe a debt to our Reserve Forces that is too great to measure. Despite what many have said, they fill a real gap in our military personnel at this time. Only on Thursday of last week, during a Question Time exchange with the Minister in the House, we were right to point out that Britain’s Reserve Forces bring skills to our military that, for whatever reason, are lacking at the minute. However, I do not propose to reopen that debate at this time. It would be less than honest for any of us not to recognise that, as a result of the Future Force 2020 programme, reservists are being recruited to meet targets in troop numbers as a result of a reduction in the number of Regular Forces. Again, this is not the place to open up that debate.
My concern, and the reason for this amendment, is a genuine worry at the sometimes adverse impact that serving in the Reserve Forces has on an individual’s main employment situation. Without the full support and co-operation of Britain’s employers, companies large and small, our entire reserve programme would not exist. Employment protection for reservists was a matter touched on during the passage of the Defence Reform Act 2014. The then Defence Secretary, Mr Hammond, responded to concerns about changes to the structure of the Reserve Forces. At that time, he gave assurances that employment discrimination against reservists is an issue that the Government take extremely seriously and that if the Government felt that further action was needed to tackle employment discrimination against reservists, they would come forward with measures in this Bill. Nothing has materialised. However, whether employment discrimination is not a problem or whether the necessary information does not exist properly, we need to examine the issue.
My starting point is the need to gather facts in order to understand the problem, to measure its extent and, lastly, if thought appropriate, to put in place mechanisms to solve it. Our amendment aspires to nothing more ambitious than making a modest start by requiring commanding officers to collect and publish statistics on employment discrimination against reservists. It is the right thing to do because we, the British people, are the employers of the reservists as much as their employers in their main civilian life. We have a duty to care and ensure that their commitment—and, yes, all too often, their sacrifices—do not lead them to painful disadvantages in civilian life and with their employment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment. I have to apologise to the Committee for not tabling a suitable amendment to raise this issue but what I have to say is related. In about 2011, I took out a mortgage on a house. Between me and my wife, we had the necessary financial resources to do it and it was not a problem. However, I wanted to take out term insurance—life insurance—so that if for any reason I passed away the mortgage would be paid off. The chances of my dying suddenly at that age were quite small, but I had to admit to the insurance company that I was still in the TA. That resulted in the premiums being unaffordable, and I did not take out that term insurance. The only reason why I did not take it out was because when I said I was in the TA, the premiums became unaffordable. Will the Minister write to me and tell me what the Government are doing about that situation, and whether it still obtains?
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I accept that this is a probing amendment. I think everyone would be of the view that discrimination should not take place against members of the Reserve Forces, but there have been examples where clearly it has, and we have just been given another.
In Northern Ireland we have substantial law on discrimination on religious or political grounds. Not that long ago, the identification of people as a member of the Armed Forces was sufficient to result in their being targeted and in many cases, unfortunately, assassinated. The Minister may not have the material at his disposal now but perhaps he might reflect and consult his colleagues in the Government on the implications of the publication of such material. It could result in the identification of units whose members had a particular religious or political persuasion.
So I support the principle, which I think is quite right, but I imagine that there could be some local nuances where the Reserve Forces are concerned. The Minister might care to consult with colleagues on that, since how the information might be acquired and handled may require slightly different treatment in Great Britain from that required in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment. Future Reserves 2020 relies upon a significant build-up of our Reserve Forces, and at a pace. Employers and reservists have both rights and responsibilities. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that a wise would-be reservist would talk their plans through with their employer, but they need not. The first the employer could hear about them is the receipt of a letter from the MoD. Similarly this can happen at the change of a job. When you apply for a job you are not under any obligation to tell your would-be employer that you are a reservist, which probably chimes with the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. It is therefore really important that there should be no discrimination. Noble Lords might wonder whether an employer would feel anxious and somewhat disappointed about the lack of confidence that the employee has in him that he has not been told, but clearly there are many reasons here. Also, what employees do in their own time is very much their own business.
There are ways around this on a temporary basis. A reservist employee can ask for a waiver from the MoD lasting a year not to tell the employer, but that aside, there is evidence of discrimination by employers. There is no protection against such discrimination in employment in the normal course of events. This probing amendment seeks to draw out from the Minister the various issues around how this might be handled and ask whether we are aware of the scale of the problem. But as with Amendment 5, recording and publishing the information gives the Government and indeed the public the opportunity to measure progress year on year and creates a fairer environment for reservists in which they are to work.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue and I understand entirely why he felt it appropriate to do so. Nevertheless, I am not convinced at the moment that it is necessary or appropriate to set out a requirement in the Armed Forces Bill for commanding officers to collect and for the Ministry of Defence to publish the kinds of data that he has referred to.
We fully recognise and value the contribution of reservists and the need to ensure that their interests are properly protected. Part of that is making sure that their reserve service does not negatively affect their employment prospects. I completely accept that principle. But that is precisely why there is protection in place to ensure that reservists are not dismissed as a result of any duties or liabilities that they have to undertake; for example, as a result of being mobilised. This protection is provided by the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, Section 1 of which gives a reservist who is called out for reserve service the right to apply to his or her former employer to be reinstated after they return from mobilised service. In addition, Section 17 of the 1985 Act makes it a criminal offence for an employer to dismiss an employee solely or mainly by reason of any duties or liabilities that may arise as a result of being called out.
Further, Section 48 of the Defence Reform Act 2014 amended the Employment Rights Act 1996 to remove the current two-year qualifying period for claims of unfair dismissal where the reason for dismissal is or is primarily because the individual is a reservist. However, we are not aware of any cases having been brought as a result of this change. In addition, as proposed in the Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valuable and Valued White Paper, we have established a website that allows reservists to alert the Ministry of Defence if they believe that they have been disadvantaged in employment as a result of their reserve service. These cases are of course investigated if the complainant agrees. There have been only 13 contacts from reservists since we established the website in July 2013. Those are the facts as they currently stand.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord seeks to place a legal duty on commanding officers to collect statistics on how many reservists have reported employment discrimination on account of their reserve service and for the Ministry of Defence to collect and publish statistics on the number of complaints regarding discrimination. There are more than 300 reserve units in the UK. Given the very low incidence of reported complaints, I submit that a requirement of that kind would be disproportionate and burdensome.
However, there is another difficulty with the proposed amendment—it may be unnecessary for me to point this out, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for doing so. It refers to “discrimination” in the context of employment, but it is important to be clear that, despite the protections that I have referred to for reservists in the civilian workplace, being a reservist is not a “protected” characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, unlike characteristics such as age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation. I would like to make a further point. It does not follow that an allegation of discrimination means that an individual has been discriminated against. One need only think of a simple example, such as someone who says that they have not been promoted because of their reservist status and that that needs investigation. Clearly when an allegation like that is made, it is quite a complex situation. While on the face of it the amendment appears simple, I suggest that there are significant difficulties below the surface.
Our approach, which I hope that noble Lords will agree with, is to develop open relationships with employers and to encourage and support reservists in their individual relationships with their employers. We encourage reservists to raise employer issues with their chain of command and to resolve issues through the improved relationship management process that we have put in place. I would like to think that those processes have borne fruit, in the light of the very small number of contacts with the website that I referred to earlier. Good relationships with employers are absolutely central to the Government’s programme for the Reserve Forces, but I believe that our resources in this area are better spent in strengthening these relationships than in creating and fuelling a reporting process.
The improved relationship with employers is increasingly evident from the number signing the Armed Forces covenant and the very strong examples of those employers up and down the country who have been recognised for their support to our Armed Forces. The issue raised by my noble friend Lord Attlee is slightly different, as I am sure he recognises, and I undertake to write to him about it.
I hope that the Committee will understand why I cannot support the proposal that the Bill should be amended. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, moved his amendment, he said that it was a probing amendment. However, I support the general position and tone of my noble friend’s response. He mentioned the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act. I must say that post-Operation TELIC, the MoD’s support for reservists who found themselves in difficulties was absolutely pathetic. Reservists were on their own. I used to fondly think that if I found myself in difficulty I would have the big bad main-building MoD on my side. The reality was that reservists got no support from the Ministry of Defence at all. They had the protection of the legislation, but they had to fight the case on their own. Whereas if the MoD had rung up to say, “This is the Ministry of Defence, why aren’t you re-engaging the reservists?”, it would have saved an awful lot of difficulty. But the MoD was, frankly, pathetic. It is not the Minister’s fault, but that is what happened after TELIC.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it was on the ability of all reservists to get their jobs back. It was not well handled by the MoD at the time. Let us just hope that we do not have to mobilise large numbers of reservists. We should remember that a lot of them had not volunteered to be mobilised, so it was not what they expected.
Lord Empey
My Lords, in the event of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, bringing back an amendment at a later stage, I wonder whether the Minister would agree to consult his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office on the specific issue that I raised.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised an issue which, as the Minister said, was not quite in line with the intentions behind the amendment. Nevertheless, it shows a degree of discrimination because somebody served in the Reserve Forces, and that is something that we need to be put right.
The noble Earl’s second intervention was rather eye-opening. I do not know whether the Minister can come back at some stage and give us some more information about what went wrong at that time, but it is certainly a failure when people come back from an operation like that to find that they do not get help and support to return to their full-time employment.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made a very important point in his second intervention, and it is one that the amendment does not really consider. The Minister’s response would be very helpful should we return to this matter at a later stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, made the point that there is endless discrimination against reservists. Surely, where we discover this, it is our job to try to do something about it. That is why we are here. What are we here for if not to right a wrong? Is that not what Parliament is supposed to be about?
I am sorry that the Minister is not convinced about the merits of the amendment. He said that there is a website and that only 13 people have contacted it, but is it not possible for the Government to include something in the annual covenant report on this matter to highlight it? It may well be that 13 is the top number and that the problem is not as great as perhaps people fear, but under the surface, below the radar, there may be many more such cases, and if we highlight the matter then we will at least get to know. If we do not open this up and get some transparency, we will not know to what extent the problem exists or whether it does not exist.
Reservists are certainly facing difficulties, and I am full of admiration for companies and employers. Some of them are very small scale—I met them when I was a Minister—employing just two or three people, but they are prepared to co-operate and help, allowing their staff to serve in the Reserve Forces. I have nothing but admiration and respect for them. However, if there are difficulties, surely it is our job to do something about them, and perhaps the Minister will reflect a little more before we reach Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Touhig
“Mental health provision and compensation
(1) Part 3 of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011 is amended as follows.(2) After article 28 insert—“28A Special provision for sufferers of mental health conditions(1) In the event of a diagnosis of a mental health condition that has been caused by serving in the armed forces, an immediate lump sum payment shall be made, as defined in article 17 (amount of lump sum and supplementary award).(2) Upon commencement of treatment of a mental health condition that has been caused by serving in the armed forces, retrospective payment of the determined compensation shall be made, dated back to the date on which the diagnosis was made.””
Lord Touhig
My Lords, Amendment 8 has widespread support across the House, as evidenced by the names attached to it.
The amendment stems from a discussion that I had recently with representatives of the BMA who raised concerns about the way that those with mental health problems are often overlooked when it comes to receiving proper recognition and compensation for the illness that they are enduring as a result of serving in our Armed Forces and reserves. I am sure I am not alone in knowing someone—a friend or a family member—who suffers with mental health problems. I often think that our lifestyles and the pace at which we live today contribute to our difficulties in this regard. I have no medical or scientific basis for holding that view; rather, it comes from what I observe in society as a whole.
None of us needs a medical or scientific background to know that mental illness can take a number of forms and can often be hard to diagnose, especially if the person concerned will not recognise the existence of the problem in the first place. I have come across cases like that and, again, I am sure I am not alone in that.
I was motivated to encourage colleagues to support this amendment by the case of a reservist with a medical background who waited eight years for a diagnosis, having endured PTSD after serving in several theatres of conflict in our Reserve Forces. I learned that there are many others in the same situation who find that mental health problems adversely impact their ability to work at the expected level, inevitably reducing their income and thus their family life. For those serving in our forces and reserves, the problem is serious indeed. Having waited a great length of time for a diagnosis, there would appear to be no opportunity of gaining immediate financial assistance. Contrast this with those having served in our Armed Forces who suffer a physical injury: they can claim up to £60,000 if their injuries are set at level 8 or more. However, mental health is classified below this level. Once diagnosed with a mental health problem, it can typically take 18 months to two years before it is clear whether treatment will lead to a complete or partial recovery and the level of residual deficit, if any. I understand that for a claim for financial compensation to succeed, the permanent level of disability must first be assessed. This adds a further lengthy period of time when the claimant who has served in our Armed Forces or reserves has to live on decreased earnings, in many cases supporting a family. The situation is made worse if the person concerned requires a period of sick leave.
Treating the men and women of our Armed Forces in this way does no honour to us as a Parliament or as a nation; all the more so now that we have the Armed Forces covenant in place. In the foreword to this year’s covenant report, the Defence Secretary, Mr Fallon, writes:
“In return for this loyalty and commitment, we have a duty to ensure that our Servicemen and women are treated fairly”.
This amendment gives us the opportunity to see that, as a country, we live up to that well-expressed and noble aspiration. We can make it more than an aspiration; we can make it a reality. If agreed, this amendment would provide for an immediate payment upon diagnosis and a retrospective payment upon commencement of treatment, backdated to the date of the diagnosis. I hope that the Government will feel able to respond positively to this amendment. In addition, I also fully support the amendment in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 8 and 14. For reasons that will become apparent, I will talk about my amendment first and then Amendment 8. The whole thing hinges on the Armed Forces covenant. Noble Lords will know that at some stage during our lifetime, one in four of us will have a mental health issue. This is pretty much mirrored in members of the Armed Forces. Today, I want to talk about serving members of the Armed Forces and reservists while they are deployed. I am not going to talk about veterans. Veterans receive their health services from the NHS, whereas serving members and deployed reservists receive their health services from the medical system within the Armed Forces. The covenant is all about ensuring that someone in the Armed Forces is not at any disadvantage to those who are outside. I do not know whether when he saw this amendment the Minister raised his eyebrows and thought, “Oh no, not again”, because during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, a great deal of time and energy was spent debating the issue of parity of esteem. This amendment is to ensure that health issues are treated in exactly the same way—clearly not in terms of diagnosis or treatment but in general expectation—regardless of whether they are physical or mental. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for his support on this.
I put it to the Committee that if a sailor, aircraft person or soldier tears their hamstring, they visit their unit doctor or medical centre. They are then referred for treatment, may be given painkillers and are strapped up. Physio will be part of the treatment and, when it is mended, in due course they will return to work. If the injury is serious, they may have to leave the service and continue with treatment outside. Physically, they will clearly be strapped up, so people can see what is going on and their colleagues and chain of command will support them in their journey back to work. A physical injury is something with which we are all comfortable and which we understand. It can be seen: there is no problem. If the issue is anxiety, depression or even worse, the story should be similar, but that is not always the case. The services have done a huge amount of work to reduce the stigma associated with these conditions, but, as in civvy street, it has not always been successful.
Within the NHS, there has to be a great move towards parity of esteem for physical and mental health. What might that look like? It might look like waiting times being much the same for a hamstring injury as for a conversation with a psychiatrist or a psychologist about one’s mental health. It should also be about the uptake of services, which should be much the same for physical health as for mental health. Therefore, I propose that the Armed Forces covenant report should include an assessment of the aspects that I have outlined. As with Amendments 5 and 7, the collection of information and its publication enables progress to be measured.
Amendment 8 follows on from Amendment 14 in that compensation should apply equally to both physical and mental health conditions and therefore I support both of the amendments.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place. Mental health has moved up the national agenda very substantially in the last few years. However, I think we all agree that at local level it is still the Cinderella service. In putting things into law, we have to be careful that there is the back-up on the ground to deliver them. I believe it will be many years before we have sufficient capability in the National Health Service to deliver the very worthy objectives contained in these amendments.
Noble Lords who have supported constituents in bringing benefits claims involving, for example, carer’s allowance and other benefits before tribunals know that you could draw a blank from the tribunal members when it came to post-traumatic stress. They had no capability of understanding the circumstances which an individual could be in. I am reminded of the early days of the discussions on mesothelioma and asbestosis, when you had to prove that the individual contracted the disease with a specific employer. The law was subsequently changed. Forty years can pass before post-traumatic stress materialises. I saw this with somebody with whom I worked very closely, and it took almost 40 years. Tying it down to a specific incident will be challenging.
In the context of the military covenant and Amendment 14, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, promises have been made and we have advanced very substantially. If ever there was an issue that needed to be addressed, this is it; and I believe that that is entirely possible. However, I am not convinced that we as a nation have yet acquired the capability on the ground to deal with these things. We do not wish to raise expectations only to have them dashed. Anyone who knows their local area knows that mental health is a huge issue, and my area is no different. We still have large numbers of young men who, sadly, commit suicide. There are people in the military and ex-service personnel who we know have a tendency to have a higher involvement with the criminal justice system. Others have difficulty with employment or with accommodation. There are also addiction issues. There are a range of things that on the face of it are linked to their commitment to the Armed Forces.
When people have been in conflict we see the obvious physical injuries and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, there is a pathway for how those are treated, but very often there is no parallel process for the mental health implications. I think that these amendments are well worth debating and considering. I just wonder whether the Minister agrees that, in framing anything to put into the legislation and into the military covenant, we should be mindful that we must be able to deliver it before we create the expectation that it is going to be there, only to have that subsequently dashed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lords have said. I believe that Her Majesty’s Armed Forces have been engaged in combat operations, as opposed to peacekeeping operations, for far too long. You can tolerate a certain amount of that, but when a difficult combat operation goes on for years and years it is bound to cause very serious mental problems among our servicemen. Like many noble Lords, I think that this is going to bite us very hard in the future.
Lord Empey
Does the noble Earl agree that we in the UK have a reasonably well documented example of that? Among members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who were effectively in a combat situation both in work and at home for many years, after the Troubles there was a substantial rise in the number of mental health issues that were presented. I am sure that the department would have those statistics available, and there might be some interesting things there.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I would like to say something about attitudes towards mental health. I remember in the 1970s appearing on behalf of a person who had been blown up rescuing a pilot from a plane in the Western Desert during the war some 30 years before. It was extremely difficult in those days to persuade the ministry—the War Department, I think it was—that he was entitled to a war pension. We succeeded in the Divisional Court, but in the next election when I was a candidate he stood up and told the people there that if they voted for anyone, it should not be that Liberal candidate as he had problems.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I support the thrust of this probing amendment. Clearly there are enormous differences between trying to deal with people who are still in the services and may be suffering from mental illness and those who have become veterans and, maybe many years later, develop or show symptoms of mental illness. How does that get related to their time in service? There are a number of other practical points that I think have been very well made. I would like to put on the record that I am for this in principle but I can see that there are many difficulties. No doubt the Minister will have a chance to tell us about them.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 14 and apologise for my very croaky voice. I do not normally engage in these discussions, but I have a very strong interest in mental health. As other noble Lords have said, with so much focus on mental health now, it really has gone up the agenda. We have had a succession of extremely important reports, most recently the mental health task force report. Parity of esteem between mental health and physical health runs right the way through that report and all the thinking behind it. If we accept that report—certainly in the debates that I have recently taken part in on this subject, the Government have shown their strong support for the reports and the principles behind them, and that is welcome—it is absolutely vital that parity of esteem between physical and mental health is applied equally to members of our Armed Forces, who do the very difficult jobs that they are asked to take on, as it is to the rest of the civilian population. I simply add my support.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I hope that it will not surprise noble Lords to hear that I fully share the sense of importance that they attach to mental health and parity of esteem in the way that mental and physical health are treated by our health services. Both these amendments seek to address provision for the care and support of members of the Armed Forces who suffer from mental health conditions while in service. This is something that we take very seriously, as I will go on to explain.
Taking first the issue of compensation for those who suffer from mental health conditions, I should explain that the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme already makes awards for injuries and disorders predominantly caused by service, including mental health conditions. The scheme is tariff based and aims to make full and final awards as early as possible so that individuals can have financial security and focus on getting on with life and living. Claims can be made while in service or when an individual has left.
The AFCS tariff has nine tables of categories of injury relevant to military service, and these include mental health disorders. While the scheme does have time limits for claims, there is also a provision for the delayed onset of mental disorders. The Ministry of Defence recognises that owing to stigma and perceived impact on career, people may delay seeking help. The practical effect of this is that if a person who left the Armed Forces some time ago is diagnosed with a mental disorder as a result of his or her service and makes a claim under the AFCS, a compensation award will be paid as soon as the claim is accepted.
Noble Lords may recall that, having been asked to review the AFCS, including the associated tariffs, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, made his recommendations in February 2010. As a result, the Ministry of Defence increased the maximum lump sum award for mental illness from £48,875 to £140,000. This was to accurately reflect the impact of the most serious mental health conditions. In addition to the lump sum, those with the most serious conditions with likely adverse functional effects on civilian employability receive a tax-free guaranteed income payment for life on discharge from the services or from the date on which the claim is accepted. A lump sum of £140,000 attracts a GIP based on 75% of military salary with enhancements for service length, age, rank and lost promotions.
Another of the noble and gallant Lord’s recommendations led to the Independent Medical Expert Group, a non-departmental public body, being established. It advises Ministers on the scientific and medical aspects of the scheme. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, identified mental health as an area requiring further investigation. The subsequent IMEG review involved a literature search and discussions with civilian and military experts, as well as with veterans’ organisations. The findings were published in its second report on 17 May 2013. The conclusions and recommendations on diagnosis, causation, assessment of disorder severity and the use of interim awards were accepted and subsequently incorporated into the scheme.
The second amendment in this group would create a specific obligation on the Government to have particular regard in their annual report on the covenant to,
“parity of esteem between mental and physical healthcare”.
As I have said previously, the Government are committed to meeting the healthcare needs of the Armed Forces community. For this reason, the Armed Forces Act 2011 already requires the Secretary of State to include in his annual Armed Forces covenant report to Parliament the effects of membership, or former membership, of the Armed Forces on service people in the field of healthcare under the covenant.
I was grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I agree with his general point about managing expectations. However, I agree with him only up to a point in this context because I think that the healthcare which we provide to our armed services personnel, both at home and when deployed on operations, is now truly world-class. Last year the principles of the covenant were enshrined into the NHS Constitution for England. That gives a commitment to ensuring that those in the Armed Forces, reservists, their families and veterans are not disadvantaged in accessing health services in the area where they reside. Indeed, we have made several improvements, including: the provision of some £6 million a year to support the provision of enhanced prosthetic devices and services for veterans who have lost a limb as a result of service; the launch of the hearWELL programme to look at hearing loss among the service community; and the allocation of £10 million to address service-related hearing issues among veterans. I know that these are related to physical injuries; nevertheless, I hope that they show the appropriate intent.
With increasing awareness of the issues, we have taken steps to meet the mental health needs of our Armed Forces community. On this specifically, we now have a network of 16 departments of community mental health across the UK, providing out-patient care to the service community. When in-patient care is necessary, it is provided in eight dedicated psychiatric units. Additionally, the Armed Forces covenant gives a commitment that veterans should be able to access mental health professionals who have an understanding of Armed Forces culture, while NHS England is currently completing an audit of veterans mental services, put in place following the Fighting Fit report by my honourable friend Dr Andrew Murrison MP in 2010.
I can therefore assure the noble Baroness that the Government are committed to meeting the health needs of the service community, that we will continue to report on the provision of healthcare in the Armed Forces covenant annual report, and that our work to address mental health needs will be an integral part of that report. However, the principles of the covenant are to ensure that the Armed Forces community are treated fairly in comparison to the civilian population. Parity of esteem is there to ensure that all health services treat mental health with the same importance as physical health, and it applies to everyone accessing NHS services, not just the Armed Forces community. For this reason, it does not need to be legislated for under the covenant.
Given our clear commitment to support those who suffer from mental health conditions and the tangible steps we are taking to do so, I ask that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness withdraw or do not move their amendments—hopefully, reassured.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, the Minister rightly makes a very important point about the commitment that we as a country have made to helping people with mental health problems. The work being done for those who have served in our Armed Forces is first class. We have had some very good contributions to this short debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, made a powerful case on Amendment 14 and I am sure that she is disappointed that the Minister does not feel it necessary to include it in the covenant report. He says that he shares our sense of the importance of this issue but the point of my amendments, which have attracted widespread support, is that people who have served in our Armed Forces and have a mental health problem receive no compensation or financial support at all until after diagnosis. That can take five years; in the case that I raised, it was eight years. That is a time when people are trying to support their families. Sometimes they cannot work properly, so this can cause all sorts of financial difficulty.
Before we reach Report, can the Minister provide the Committee with statistics showing whether this is a widespread problem and how many years people have to wait before they get a diagnosis? As I say, my information suggests that in many cases they wait for at least five years. If you are in financial difficulties and cannot get back to work, that is pretty devastating for someone who has served in the British Armed Forces, especially in the reserves. I hope that the Minister will feel able to do that at the very least. Whether we return to this on Report is another matter, but the information would be helpful because then we would know the extent of the problem and whether there is a need for us to press further for the Government to act. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
“Limited disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998
The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall not apply to any member of the armed forces engaged in military operations outside the United Kingdom, with the exception of those rights protected by the Geneva Conventions of 1949.”
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to explore the result of a case known as Smith and others v Ministry of Defence, which has provoked a good deal of concern among those experienced in the military and in service. I feel that it is right to try to deal with it in the course of this Bill. It is therefore necessary for me to explain as quickly as I can what the judgment entails. There was a fairly sharp difference of opinion within the Supreme Court about the rule that should apply.
It was a case before seven judges concerning claims arising out of the deaths of three young men and the suffering by two other young men of serious injuries while serving in the British Army in Iraq. The claims related to the training given to the soldiers before their engagement with the enemy, the provision of suitable equipment and the selection made of available equipment for a particular operation. They fell into two groups. The first, the Challenger claim, was the result of a “friendly fire” incident that occurred during combat when Iraq was being invaded by the coalition forces in 2003. The second was the result of a series of attacks using roadside bombs on personnel travelling in Snatch Land Rovers in 2005 and 2006 when combat was over and had been replaced by a period of military occupation. The British forces were assisting the civil power in Iraq, which at the time had an interim Government.
It is very important to understand that, at least in substance, the claims were not against those involved in the operations. The report of the Supreme Court concerns a stage in the proceedings when the question was whether the pleadings disclosed a case that should proceed to a full trial of the facts. The claims concerned the European Convention on Human Rights and the common law of England. Article 1 provides that:
“The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention”.
All the judges of the court agreed unanimously that the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom extends to securing the protection of Article 2 of the convention to members of the Armed Forces when they are serving outside the territory of the United Kingdom. That was an important point because, until then, there had been a general feeling that jurisdiction depended on the territorial extent of the state in question.
Article 2.1 was brought into play by that unanimous decision. It provides that:
“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law”.
After detailed consideration of the relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, summed up the position in this way:
“The guidance which I would draw from the Court’s jurisprudence in this area is that the court must avoid imposing positive obligations on the state in connection with the planning for and conduct of military operations in situations of armed conflict which are unrealistic or disproportionate. But it must give effect to those obligations where it would be reasonable to expect the individual to be afforded the protection of the article. It will be easy to find that allegations are beyond the reach of article 2 if the decisions that were or ought to have been taken about training, procurement or the conduct of operations were at a high level of command and closely linked to the exercise of political judgment and issues of policy”.
That is a reflection of a line of authority that indicates that, for example, the chief constable of a police force does not have a specific duty enforceable in the law of negligence in respect of individual members of the public in his area. The noble and learned Lord went on:
“So too if they relate to things done or not done when those who might be thought to be responsible for avoiding the risk of death or injury to others were actively engaged in direct contact with the enemy”.
That is the important point to think about in relation to the decision—that it did not impute any liability to those who were directly or actively engaged in direct contact with the enemy. He continued:
“But finding whether there is room for claims to be brought in the middle ground”—
that is, between the two—
“so that the wide margin of appreciation which must be given to the authorities or to those actively engaged in armed conflict is fully recognised without depriving the article of content, is much more difficult. No hard and fast rules can be laid down. It will require the exercise of judgment. This can only be done in the light of the facts of each case”.
That is one result of the analysis in the case of Smith.
I should mention that the convention is modified by a protocol which provides for a modification of convention obligations where a member of the convention is threatened by war. However, this was deemed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to have no application to the circumstances that he was considering, as the operations in Iraq were not the result of a threat of war against the United Kingdom. It is interesting to consider whether the United Kingdom can engage in war against Iraq when Iraq is not at war with the United Kingdom.
The other basis of the claim was a duty of care laid upon the body responsible for the safety of the soldiers by the common law of England. This is a consideration completely separate from the Human Rights Act. As an exception to the general application of that duty, the courts have developed the concept of “combat immunity”. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, used as a formulation of this concept a statement by Mr Justice Dixon in an Australian case. He said:
“To concede that any civil liability can rest upon a member of the armed forces for supposedly negligent acts or omissions in the course of an actual engagement with the enemy is opposed alike to reason and to policy. But the principle cannot be limited to the presence of the enemy or to occasions when contact with the enemy has been established. Warfare perhaps never did admit of such a distinction, but now it would be quite absurd. The development of the speed of ships and the range of guns were enough to show it to be an impracticable refinement, but it has been put out of question by the bomber, the submarine and the floating mine. The principle must extend to all active operations against the enemy”.
In discussing this subsequent development, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out that, being an immunity, it has to be strictly construed. He concluded on both grounds that an application of these views to the case before the court required a close consideration of the facts and that it should proceed to a full trial. With that conclusion, three of his colleagues agreed, but Lord Carnwath, who was in the minority on the claims in the first group, agreed with the other four that the claims in the second group should go to trial—that is, where it was no longer a combat situation but a peacekeeping situation.
The minority judgment was first given by Lord Mance. He disagreed for a reason which he stated thus as far as the common law basis of the claim was concerned:
“I consider that the Challenger claims, which are only in common law negligence, should be struck out in their entirety on the basis that the state owes no such duty of care as alleged with regard to the provision of technology, equipment or training to avoid death or injury in the course of an active military operation”.
Again, that is a reflection of the principle that I mentioned in relation to, for example, the police. On the human rights basis, Lord Mance said:
“In my opinion therefore this Court should proceed on the basis that the policy considerations which guide its domestic law in the present area of national interest will find an echo in Strasbourg, and not invade a field which would involve, in the context of claims for civil compensation, extensive and highly sensitive review with the benefit of hindsight the United Kingdom’s country’s policies, strategy and tactics relating to the deployment and use of its armed forces in combat. The United Kingdom’s performance of its investigatory and procedural duties under article 2 is not in doubt”—
and he mentions a few inquiries, including the Chilcot inquiry, lamenting that it was rather late, although that was in 2013. He concludes:
“The issue with which this judgment is concerned is whether deaths and (at common law) injuries in combat fall to be investigated in the civil courts, at whatever level in the armed forces, Whitehall or the government responsibility for them is suggested to arise. The answer I would give is, no”.
Lord Carnwath agreed to a large extent with Lord Mance, but he took the view that as some of the claims related to what amounted to peacekeeping operations, a joint approach did not apply.
That is a short analysis of the judgment and the issues involved. As I said, my amendment is simply phrased to allow this matter to be considered. I suggest that it is for your Lordships to consider what should be done in the light of this judgment, which is an important one with strong differences of opinion echoed at the highest level in our legal system.
One possibility is to do nothing and just leave the issue as unresolved. It has been resolved by a majority of the Supreme Court and that would stand, but due to the fact that there is such a sharp difference of opinion I thought that it was worth finding out whether your Lordships would consider legislation on this point. I suggest that the first option for legislation is to provide that no action for negligence will be available when injury or death occurs in combat or in military peacekeeping operations to the personnel involved in those operations. That is the minority judgment—that if the injury occurs in the course of a military operation, combat or peacekeeping, there should be no claim in negligence. The second is that it would apply only in combat operations and that, if it were a peacekeeping operation, a claim would arise.
The major option, if one goes along with the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and those who agreed with him, would be that no action for negligence will be available when injury or death occurs in combat or military peacekeeping operations against anyone involved in these operations but it will be available against others if that is realistic and proportionate. That seems to me to be what is said about the Human Rights Act. Again, the question would be whether that applies only in combat operations or whether peacekeeping operations are also included.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Before he finishes, may I ask the noble Lord about claims against the Armed Forces? For example, Iraqi claims have been brought forward that rely, to some extent, on the Human Rights Act. What is the impact of his amendment on that?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
This applies only to the injury or death of those serving in the military on behalf of the British Crown. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out to me just before we came in, operations nowadays may not be on behalf of only the British Crown. They may be carried out, for example, in combination with the Americans, the French or some other nation. That is a further complication which did not arise in the case of Smith. The same principles could possibly apply in that situation. However, it does not deal at all with actions against, for example, Iraqis or any other people among whom our Armed Forces might be serving. The jurisdiction applies, in this particular case, to the injury or death of those serving. There would be implications of other kinds, not dealt with in Smith, so far as people who are not members of the Armed Forces are affected by actions of the Armed Forces.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, it was a privilege to put my name to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I have looked upon it very much as a probing amendment to give the Government an opportunity to indicate how their thinking is going. We have a problem with the Human Rights Act and Armed Forces legislation. Indeed, when the Human Rights Act was debated here in 1998 I drew attention to the potential problems that might arise. My concerns were dismissed then by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I quote what he said then:
“I urge your Lordships to be of the view that the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces”.—[Official Report, 5/2/98; col. 768.]
Whatever flexibilities the noble and learned Lord had in mind, they have I fear proved to be valueless and ephemeral. Cases against the MoD and individual service personnel affecting our forces on operations overseas have proliferated. Some were settled out of court. Others made the prolonged and tortuous passage up through the courts, with the MoD appealing a couple to the Supreme Court in 2013. The Committee has had a good exposition of what happened in the Supreme Court. It was a thorough and nuanced finding but there was a 4/3 split and they did not really resolve the issue.
Later that year, in a debate led very admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I suggested that the Armed Forces Bill before the Committee today would be a suitable vehicle for legislating to ease the problems faced by the MoD and the Armed Forces on operational activity overseas. So, as I made quite clear at Second Reading, I was dismayed to find that no attempt has been made to tackle the problem in this Bill. The Government have had the better part of three years since the Supreme Court judgment to consider what form legislation should take. I have pointed out in debates on this issue that it was not going to go away —it had legs—and that it would be a failure of political leadership not to tackle it.
In recent weeks, the much-heralded Bill of Rights has been mentioned as shortly to be published. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, indicated as much in his response to the second Oral Question this afternoon. I thought that the noble Lord also confirmed that it will incorporate legislation to help to resolve the problems created for the Armed Forces by the incompatible legislation that affects them. If so, I very much hope that whatever detailed form the legislation takes, it will introduce further amendment to this Armed Forces Bill when it is enacted. It would be preferable to contain any new legislation within the principal Armed Forces Act, rather than once again having two separate pieces of legislation about the behavioural discipline of the Armed Forces. Indeed, in the debates on the then Human Rights Bill in 1998, I suggested that while the Armed Forces were of course a public body, it was acceptable that they were, and indeed should be, treated separately in legislation. I suggested that any aspects of human rights that were to apply to the Armed Forces should be incorporated into that Armed Forces legislation. If this approach had been adopted then, we might not be facing the present difficulties.
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, on the second Oral Question this afternoon seemed to imply that the clauses affecting the Armed Forces were already drafted. If so, surely the Bill before the Committee this afternoon could be an appropriate vehicle for getting this legislation enacted, particularly if the Bill of Rights is to be delayed, and may, as a whole, have some considerable difficulty in reaching the statute book. Has this been considered? If so, can we expect government amendments to this Bill on Report?
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for laying out so clearly exactly where this stands, although I have to say that the result does not leave things particularly clear for a number of reasons which he has explained. I will not reiterate what I said in my speech at Second Reading, where I went into the detail of this complex issue, but suffice it to say that the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Smith and others v Ministry of Defence has, without doubt, raised the spectre of military personnel who take a decision in the heat of action being taken to court to face a claim under the Human Rights Act. As I say, it has raised that spectre. That is clearly wrong and I do not believe that it is what was intended. Indeed, mention has been made of how the case is not against those involved, but the result is that the spectre has arisen. I feel very strongly about this. I have been in action and have taken decisions that resulted in men dying. I believe that I took the right decisions, but it would be wrong for one then to have to go through the courts to explain all of that.
Of course these issues are highly complex, and that is part of the problem. The cases that were being considered looked at a number of different scenarios concerning things like the definition of combat operations, peacekeeping operations within Iraq, the issue of procurement, issues around the tanks and Snatch Land Rovers operating in a different context and being hit by IEDs. The sheer complexity has caused part of the problem. It has been said that some of these matters need to be investigated by the civil courts. That has dragged in the possibility of people fully in action being taken to the courts later for decisions they took, which I do not believe should be looked at in civilian courts. They should be covered by combat immunity.
I shall reiterate what I said before. It is a nonsense that one can use human rights legislation to drag military leaders through the courts for decisions made in war because, in combat, men and women kill and are killed on a regular basis fighting for their country. One has to wonder what exactly the right to life is when you are fighting. You have to make people stand up and do things where you know they are likely to be killed. I have done that. What is the right to life in those circumstances? It is very difficult, and I do not believe that the judgment was making that point, but that could be the result of what has been done.
As has been said, this is a probing amendment. I love it because it is nice and simple. Being a simple sailor, I love a simple amendment, but the complexity is far too great and I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, appreciates that. He has tabled it to probe the Government and find out. We need to know how the Government are going to take this forward. How will we clarify and resolve this position, because it really does need to be resolved? There is certainly concern in the military about this, and it spreads far and wide. There is also, I have to say, concern at times about fighting to win if you feel that some sort of legislative action is going to be taken against you. It would be a dreadful thing if our Armed Forces were to feel constrained.
What I would say to the noble Earl is this: we need an answer as to how this is going to be taken forward. Will it be done in the context of this Bill, as was mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, or will we do it in other legislation that is going through? How can we take it forward, because I do not believe that it can be left as it is? There is too much uncertainty. I know that it was not what the judgment aimed to do, but the uncertainty is there, and that is wrong. We have to clarify this.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I would be grateful if I could speak first because the noble and learned Lord might wish to comment on what I say. I do not think the issue is the liability of the military commander in the field directing operations. As I recall, the cases were about the provision of equipment which would have prevented the firing of one tank upon another—the “friendly fire” that caused the injuries—and, in the other, the use of Snatch Land Rovers in a situation where it was unsafe to use vehicles of that type. The Ministry of Defence, which really must promote something like this, should not get away with the provision of inadequate equipment of one sort or another. You would not expect a soldier to go into action in Arctic conditions wearing a tropical uniform that had been provided to him. It is a question of procurement, not of the decisions that are taken in the field.
I seem to recall the noble Lord, Lord West, saying at Second Reading that when you are in the field you have to get on with it and do what you can with what you have got. The fact that you have to do so does not mean to say that those who have provided you with inadequate equipment—who fail to give a steel helmet to a Tommy in the trenches, for example—should escape all liability or blame for what occurs by amendments to the Human Rights Act in this way.
Lord West of Spithead
My fear is that this judgment has opened up the spectre of things to be investigated by the civil courts. That is why this comes into train, although I know that they were aiming at high-level procurement.
I have to say as an aside that to start with in a war you always have to fight with the equipment you have got. Almost inevitably, certainly in the two wars that I have been in, the equipment that we had at the time was not what I would have used in that situation, but we had to get on with it. I bloody well—sorry, I knew that the equipment was not up to that task. I knew, for example, that I had put my ship in a position where my anti-aircraft capability would not work, but I was destroying an airfield and supporting Special Forces operations so I had to be there. Still, I knew jolly well that if there were heavy air attacks I would suffer; indeed there were, and I was sunk. I am concerned that something could happen in a court where someone says, “Why did West do that when he knew jolly well that the equipment was not up to it?”, and that is wrong. That is the point that I am making: there could be an unintended consequence. That is what I am nervous about.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I wonder if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, would let me speak before him because I intend to quote him at some length and he can correct any mistakes I make. I make it clear that the Opposition would not support this amendment as set out. I am not talking about little technicalities about wording; I am talking about an erosion of the Human Rights Act. We believe that that is a proper and admirable piece of legislation and that its retention is important. No doubt this will be the basis of a major battle between the parties in the weeks to come when the legislation is published.
I turn to the specific area of the judgment. Before Second Reading, I had not heard of Smith and others v Ministry of Defence. I googled it, thinking, “This will give me the information”, only to discover that the judgment was 72 pages and 188 paragraphs long. At the very moment when I had a sense of doom, I noticed that it had been given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, whose office is some 50 metres from mine, so I tried to save myself some effort by going to see him, and I thank him for the briefing he gave me.
I looked through the 72 pages to get a wider flavour of the judgment. I will concentrate solely on the Challenger 2 event. The Snatch Land Rover issue is complicated by the fact that it was not formally a combat situation but a peacekeeping one, so while it is important to the debate, it is capable of being part a much wider debate. In my view, however, the tone of the judgment on the Challenger 2 event is straightforward. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has already quoted paragraph 76 of the judgment, but if the Committee will forgive me I shall quote a few more paragraphs. Paragraph 82 states:
“The Challenger claims proceed on the basis that there is no common law liability for negligence in respect of acts or omissions on the part of those who are actually engaged in armed combat”.
That is a pretty flat statement. It continues:
“So it has not been suggested that Lt Pinkstone or anyone else in the Black Watch battle group was negligent. Nor, as his decision to fire was taken during combat, would it have been appropriate to do so. The Challenger claimants concentrate instead on an alleged failure to ensure that the claimants’ tank and the tanks of the battle group that fired on it were properly equipped with technology and equipment that would have prevented the incident, and an alleged failure to ensure that soldiers were provided with adequate recognition training before they were deployed and also in theatre. Their case is founded entirely on failings in training and procurement”.
Its final sentence says that:
“The Ellis claim at common law also raises issues about procurement”.
If we delve further into the document, we get what is in a sense the substance of the ruling. Paragraph 95 says that:
“The same point can be made about the time when the failures are alleged to have taken place in the Challenger claimants’ case. At the stage when men are being trained, whether pre-deployment or in theatre, or decisions are being made about the fitting of equipment to tanks or other fighting vehicles, there is time to think things through, to plan and to exercise judgment. These activities are sufficiently far removed from the pressures and risks of active operations against the enemy for it to not to be unreasonable to expect a duty of care to be exercised, so long as the standard of care that is imposed has regard to the nature of these activities and to their circumstances. For this reason I would hold that the Challenger claims are not within the scope of the doctrine”—
that is, combat immunity—
“that they should not be struck out on this ground and that the MOD should not be permitted, in the case of these claims, to maintain this argument”.
Its argument was to rule that it should be struck out through the doctrine of combat immunity.
The tone of the whole judgment is summed up in paragraph 100 where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, says:
“The sad fact is that, while members of the armed forces on active service can be given some measure of protection against death and injury, the nature of the job they do means that this can never be complete. They deserve our respect because they are willing to face these risks in the national interest, and the law will always attach importance to the protection of life and physical safety. But it is of paramount importance that the work that the armed services do in the national interest should not be impeded by having to prepare for or conduct active operations against the enemy under the threat of litigation if things … go wrong. The court must be especially careful, in their case, to have regard to the public interest, to the unpredictable nature of armed conflict and to the inevitable risks that it gives rise to when it is striking the balance as to what is fair, just and reasonable”.
In other words, over and over again in the findings as I read them—as an amateur and not as a general, although I was made acting pilot officer, and having never been a lawyer, although I was a great employer of lawyers—the noble and learned Lord seems to go out of his way to express that this is not about combat. It is about when it is reasonable and practical to do so that the MoD has a duty of care.
I come back to my question. Where is the harm in sustaining the Human Rights Act as it has been used in this case, and what are the implications? The implications are that it says that simply because the process eventually leads to combat, the Ministry of Defence cannot use the doctrine of combat immunity to avoid its duty of care. Where it is reasonable to exercise its duty of care, it has a duty to do that.
Also in my career, I worked for the Ministry of Defence as a non-executive director of defence and equipment support. As such, I was asked to look into the safety of equipment in the MoD, and I have to say that it was variable. In some areas it did not meet the highest civil standard. I do not mean silly standards; I mean the general duty that you have in civil law to reduce risk to as low as is reasonably practicable. Civil law does not say that you cannot do dangerous things and no one is suggesting that the military should not, but where you have an opportunity to reduce risk, you have a duty to take it. That cannot be an unreasonable duty. My reading of the judgment is that that is where the duty remains: where it is practicable it should be exercised, but where it is impractical, specifically in combat, then a court should not regard it.
The area of harm that does exist is what in other circumstances people would call the chill factor. The Health and Safety at Work Act has been around for so long now that most industries that are subject to it, whatever you read in the press, are mature enough to live with it. However, there are still things like the presumption of guilt—the chill factor that will stop executives from doing their job. In fact people get over it and get used to it, but if it is influencing in combat the decisions that soldiers, sailors and airmen are making, then that is wrong. That is a challenge for the MoD, not a challenge to change the law but in its training, in its teaching of the doctrine and in ensuring that the people who are making decisions fully understand that this ruling does not relate to combat and that they should continue to make their combat decisions as they have been taught to, within the rules of what I loosely call the Geneva convention, and get on with the job.
We will not support this amendment. If it comes up on Report we will oppose it, or in trying to dilute the Human Rights Act, we will oppose it.
Lord West of Spithead
Just before my noble friend sits down, I would like to get clarification. Is he saying that combat immunity trumps the Human Rights Act? In a European Court judgment on human rights, combat immunity will trump it—is that what is being said? That does not appear to be the case, which is one of the worries that I have with what is going on. The French and another nation, for example, have both taken their military out of that and said that they are not liable to the Human Rights Act in action. However, my noble friend seems to be saying that combat immunity trumps the Act, so this is not a problem that we should be discussing. Is that correct?
Lord Tunnicliffe
One of the reasons why I spoke when I did was so that there could be a summing-up of the law by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. My understanding of the judgment is that there is no question that the Human Rights Act applies to military personnel when they are serving overseas. It was a unanimous decision of the court and all seven judges agreed that it was true. What they then asked was, “What does the Human Rights Act require?”. People really should read the Human Rights Act. It is about three or four pages long and is a brilliant document. It refers to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is also well worth every person in our legislature having a read of. The Act is an extremely balanced document, virtually every provision of which expects you to behave reasonably.
What the court said, and I précis, is that the duty in the Human Rights Act to have care for those you are responsible for—the right to life—has to be interpreted reasonably, and the doctrine of the common law right of combat immunity holds good in a combat situation. Where there is proper opportunity to consider actions that may reduce risk then you have a duty of care to consider those actions, but not in combat and in the heat of battle.
Lord West of Spithead
My noble friend’s exposition explains exactly my concerns about what is going on because it is not at all clear. That is why we need this in order to have the issue clarified. What my noble friend has said has actually left me totally confused as a military commander, so we need to have this clarified. That is why I believe that this is important.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I can see why my noble friend was made an admiral and I only an acting pilot officer.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I wonder whether I could say a word. First, I apologise for the fact that due to other business I was not able to hear the speech and analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, although he did show me in advance the paper from which much of his speech was drawn. I also expressed my regret to the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I have other business to attend to and might not be able to be here all the time.
I should like to say a few words because I feel a heavy weight of responsibility on my shoulders; I had the responsibility of writing the judgment. It covered an enormous amount of ground. I was not responsible for all the paragraphs because other people wrote as well. The starting point of the analysis was what to make of developments in the European court in Strasbourg, which has been expanding the jurisdiction in a way that I do not think judges in this country entirely welcome. It has always been understood that the European convention applies to our embassies abroad; that is accepted and has never been in doubt.
Gradually the thinking has developed so that, for example, when in Iraq the military set up a detention centre, bringing local people in to be detained and examined there, they had the protection of the human rights convention—the right not to be tortured, the right to life and so on—because we had control over what happens within the detention centres that we set up. What is different about the law which we were trying to analyse and explain is the extension of that jurisdiction, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, explained, to members of the Armed Forces serving outside the territory—not just outside the territory of the signatories to the European convention itself but outside the territory over which they have control. We are now contemplating Article 2 applying to areas where the Army are not in control of events but nevertheless have some duty, apparently, or have the protection under Article 2. That applies both ways. The amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, could in fact be read as applying to the need to be protected under Article 2 as well as the right to immunity from challenge under it for things done to other people.
What I was attempting to do, having secured the agreement of all my colleagues on my analysis, was that we had to recognise that Article 2 applied outside the territory, so we had to explain what that meant. It was not an easy task. One of the problems in trying to get across to people like the noble Lord, Lord West, and others was that we were not dealing with a case that put in front of us the kind of situation that he was faced with. They did not bring a case against the commander in the tank or anyone who was actually on the ground that they were in some way subject to criticism under Article 2 or subject to a claim for negligence at common law. I rather wish they had, because we would certainly have struck it out. We would have made it absolutely plain that people in that position, the heat of battle, are not to be exposed to criticism or to litigation because of things done in those circumstances. Decisions have to be taken for all sorts of reasons and it is quite impossible for a court to analyse them as to whether they were properly taken.
All I could do in my judgment—the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has been very generous to me by setting out the various paragraphs in which I tried to do it—was to make it as plain as I could that there is an area that the courts will not go into. I did not secure the agreement of my colleagues on what to do about the cases in front of us. There was a four to three majority in favour of allowing the Challenger cases to go to trial to find out more about the facts before a decision was taken, and there was a five to two majority about the Snatch Land Rover cases that they should go to trial as well. There can be different views about this. The advantage of more facts was in fairness to the families that what was actually going on was absolutely clear before a final decision was taken. However, I made it as clear as I could that those who were taking the cases to trial should not think they were going to succeed. They had to get over the hurdles, which I explained in the various parts of my judgments. What the result of these cases will be, I simply do not know.
I cannot add to my judgment; that is not a position that a judge can ever enjoy. My judgment has to speak for itself. All I can say is that I would not change any of the words that I see when I read it over and over again. It is a difficult problem because one has to balance the need for the military to conduct operations without impediment, whether in wartime or peacetime, with, at the same time, the interests of the servicemen and their families. The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Tunnicliffe, both illustrated the other side of the balance. I am not suggesting that legislation should not be resorted to, if the Government think that they can improve on what I attempted to say in Smith. Lord Bingham of Cornhill, one of the greatest judges that we have had in recent times, used to say that the law is made not by scoring boundaries by sixes but that you develop the law in singles. In a way, Smith was an attempt to face up to a problem and explain under modern circumstances what could be made of it. I do not claim that we achieved perfection by any means. I am deeply sorry that it has caused such alarm among senior members of the military for reasons that I certainly did not intend. I cannot do anything about that, except to apologise to them and hope they understand what I was trying to say.
The task that the Minister faces is the very difficult one of trying to analyse exactly how to express in legislation the need for protection of the individuals serving in our interest and, at the same time, giving freedom to those who have to take the decisions not to be impeded in a way that would defeat our national interest.
There is only one other point I wish to make, which I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, hinted at in his speech. Any legislation will have to stand up to scrutiny under the European convention itself. It has to be compatible with the convention rights. However, I think that the noble and learned Lord was pointing out the direction in which the Government could go by saying that there is a margin of appreciation, which gives quite a latitude to the Government in deciding how to frame legislation. In a way, I was trying to explain in paragraph 76 that and how the margin of appreciation might lie. Not everyone agreed with me, and perhaps the Minister can improve on what I was trying to say.
Before I sit down, I repeat my apology to the senior officers in the military who think that that are being in some way targeted by what I said. That was certainly not my intention and I did the very best I could to make it clear that they were not to be open to that kind of criticism.
Lord West of Spithead
I certainly do not have the view that that was the aim of the judgment by the noble and learned Lord. However, because he was not able to make a judgment on a case of someone involved in action, this spectre has appeared. It is unfortunate that a judgment was not able to be made. Therefore, there is the spectre of something being done. I generally do not like legislation, but there is merit in trying to achieve something in legislation. I have read the whole judgment and had a nice chat with the noble and learned Lord at lunchtime about the issue—that is one of the great joys of being in this lovely building. I quite understand it, but that is my worry.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. One cannot invent cases. The trouble with the courts is that you simply have to take what you are given. That is the real problem, which I think the noble Lord correctly identified.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Does the noble and learned Lord think that a way forward—
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, the judgment in Smith, although 72 pages long, deals with one aspect only of the several problems that face the military as a result of the application of human rights, as opposed to international humanitarian law, to our Armed Forces serving abroad. It is important to recognise that Smith deals only with claims by our own soldiery regarding deaths and serious injuries against the ministry, not against individual officers. This amendment, and this is important, deals with only one aspect of Smith: the human rights claims brought by our armed services, not negligence claims.
The fact of the matter is that even if this amendment is put in place, it leaves the negligence capability—the ability of the soldiers to claim negligence against the military—still open to them. So questions of compensation and of blame are still open to be litigated. As I made plain on Second Reading, I would deal with the compensation claims as well, but not in such a way as to deprive the injured soldiers or the relatives of the deceased soldiers of any money. Instead, without their needing to establish liability and negligence, I would increase their entitlement beyond that under the pension scheme by giving them the equivalent of common law damages and getting rid of all the litigation. It is the litigation and the risk of litigation arising out of these cases that inhibits our military capabilities, puts people on the defensive and does all the things that worry the senior military personnel.
This is a minor point—and I speak with diffidence—but I would not draft the provision in the way that this particular proposal is drafted. It seems to me that it goes too wide. What is required to deal with the human rights aspect of Smith is to embargo claims under Articles 2 and possibly 3 of the convention on the part of our armed services. We could have some formulation along the lines that members of the armed services engaged in military operations outside the UK should not be entitled to claim by reference to Article 2, or Articles 2 and 3, of the European convention. As presently drafted, it disapplies the entire Act and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hope rightly says, there are undoubtedly aspects of the Human Rights Act which plainly would apply. For example, take a court martial of one of these personnel serving abroad: one would presumably want to apply Article 6 of the convention to their case. It is not that which we are concerned to deal with; it is only the claims aspect.
Similarly, there is nothing in this amendment or in Smith which deals with the very real problems that have been caused to other aspects of our armed services abroad, such as claims by foreign combatants and civilians, claims that Strasbourg dealt with in cases such as al-Skeini, and cases concerning the detention of foreign suspects, as in the case of al-Jedda.
I believe that it is quite possible to introduce this limited disapplication of a right to rely on Articles 2 and 3 consistently with our human rights obligations. In other words, I think that there is a very powerful argument for saying that the majority in the Supreme Court in Smith did not actually need under the convention to go as far as to accept that Article 2 and Article 3 liability could arise on the part of the UK in respect of any of these claims.
On Second Reading, I mentioned, as did others, the publication Clearing the Fog of Law, which is compulsory reading for anyone who takes a serious interest in the problems caused by applying human rights law to our Armed Forces abroad. It deals with this narrow question raised by Smith at pages 43 to 45. I will not quote from it at length, but it is written by Tom Tugendhat, a retired colonel who is now a Member of Parliament, and two distinguished legal academics, one from Cambridge and one from Oxford. They state:
“It is strongly arguable that the UK Supreme Court misconstrued Article 2 of”,
the convention,
“imposing more extensive obligations than the European Court of Human Rights would mandate. Legislative reversal of Smith … is the only practical way that the outer boundary of Article 2 of”,
the convention,
“can be tested before the ultimate interpreter of the Convention in Strasbourg”.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I was going to put this question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, consider that a way forward might be to attempt legislatively to put the boundaries of combat immunity forward?
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
I am glad to have been asked that question because it gives me the opportunity of saying this. Combat immunity is not of relevance here in respect of the convention claims. It is highly relevant, and was the answer sought to be advanced by the ministry, to the negligence claims. What was held, as my noble and learned friend said, by not four but five members of the court was that it did not extend to the peacekeeping mission that was relevant to the negligence claims.
I would not deal with the negligence part of the claims by extending the scope of combat immunity. I would deal with those parts, as I said at Second Reading, by legislating under Section 2(2) of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act which enables one, in effect, to disapply tort law in respect of our Armed Forces. However, I would give them the compensation that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is understandably intent that they should have by making sure that they do not lose out by getting less under the pension scheme than they would if there were successful common law claims. I would give them the money on a no-fault liability basis because they have incurred these ghastly injuries serving the national interest in combat abroad.
However, I regard that as having nothing whatever to do with the limited scope of this amendment, which is simply to disapply the relevant part of the convention to that aspect of these claims. It would disapply Articles 2 and 3 so that, if necessary, it could be tested in Strasbourg whether the majority in the court in Smith needed to go as far as they did in saying that Article 2 applied. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, I believe that the court would say that the margin of appreciation here allows us not to apply Articles 2 and 3 in this sensitive situation where Armed Forces are serving in combat abroad.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I strongly support my noble and learned friend and his noble and gallant supporters. I have deployed on two military operations, in addition to aid operations. One was peacekeeping and one was war-fighting but for our purposes there was no difference because a peacekeeping operation can deteriorate into a war-fighting or combat operation.
On both operations I willingly put my life, limb and security at the disposal of Her Majesty. “Her Majesty” might sound an old-fashioned term but to me it is all-encompassing. It means the nation, its citizens, the Government, the CDS—who at the time was the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce—and the chain of command.
In return, the nation regards such service as highly commendable. If I did not come back or I was badly injured, it would be jolly hard luck. Statistically, it was actually unlikely. Whenever you deploy on military operations, it is a sad fact that it is not likely that everyone is going to come back intact, and you have to accept that if you are prepared to authorise military action. Obviously, my family would mourn my demise, but what I would not have wanted is the chain of command and the staff wasting their time on inquiries or litigation about my bad luck when they are trying to prosecute a campaign and to secure the absolute minimum number of casualties overall. I suspect that all of the cause célèbre cases that I have read about have been either misreported or misleadingly reported in order to make a good story. In some cases, I know this to be the case because at the relevant time I was in the headquarters handling the issue. If noble Lords want to be briefed privately on that, I am quite willing to do so.
It seems to me that there are several difficulties with involving the legal system when there appears to be a failure in an operation, the planning of it, the resourcing of it or the training for it. The first issue I am certain about because I have seen it myself. Sadly, in a few cases the deceased or those around him or her are the authors of their own misfortune. Sometimes, there is a failure to adhere to the training. I have read news reports where I have had to conclude that for one reason or another the training was not adhered to. Obviously, the MoD is not going to use any of these defences against a claim or misleading news report. We would be shocked if it did so, and I think that some Members of the Committee are a little bit shocked that I am taking this line.
The second issue is that there may be a very good technical reason why some equipment is not used. There could be intelligence to suggest that it is not a good idea. For instance, the capability could have been compromised in some way or using that equipment might be of benefit to opponents. There might be a military judgment to be made about which technology or capability is the highest priority to deploy to theatre. The Committee needs to recognise that in an operation logistic capacity is neither infinite nor perfect.
In about May or June 2003, I was running around in Basra province in southern Iraq in a soft-skin Land Rover. I was heavily armed with a Browning 9 millimetre pistol. My body armour was somewhere in the back of the Land Rover and I am reasonably confident that my driver had his SA80 rifle. It was a benign environment and I did not need protected mobility. But then the situation changed for reasons that the useless Chilcot inquiry may eventually tell us. Following tours had to adopt a much higher state of readiness and needed better equipment, and this was not anticipatable.
The final difficulty is morale. It does not improve morale anywhere in defence to have to endure all this completely unfair and inaccurate criticism. For instance, imagine that you are an expert in the DSTL and read a report suggesting that the very clever equipment you are developing and deploying is in some way inadequate. I have made this point before and I will make it again. I think that trying to pin responsibility for an individual fatality arising from Operation TELIC 1 against the then Labour defence Ministers is outrageous. There may well be questions about the legality, necessity, grand strategy and post-conflict planning of TELIC 1. However, the operation was militarily brilliant. We are one of the few nations in the world that could have undertaken it at all. Most nations cannot even get close to what we can do. We deployed a division out of theatre. We helped to get a regime to collapse at the cost of a mercifully low number of casualties, tragic though they were. The reality of military operations is that one never has all the training or equipment that one would desire or that could be made available in time. What you need is far better training and equipment than your opponent has, and that is exactly what happened on Operation TELIC 1. Noble Lords should make no mistake: in a deployed headquarters every fatality hurts like hell. I know; I have been there.
My final point is that there is a perverse inverse law that the level of scrutiny attached to each fatality on an operation is inversely proportionate to the number of fatalities taken. Proof of this is that if we had taken 1,000 fatalities on Operation TELIC 1, would anyone be worried about the ones who are currently a cause célèbre? I think that the Committee knows the answer.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay for having given the Committee the opportunity to examine the set of issues that are of fundamental importance for our Armed Forces and indeed for the Government. As my noble and learned friend explained, the amendment would end the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to service personnel engaged in military operations outside the United Kingdom. I have very great sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. Recent legal developments have raised justifiable fears in many quarters that service personnel could be unwilling in future to take the rapid and high-risk decisions essential for operational effectiveness, due to the fear of litigation. The Government fully believe that international humanitarian law, as embodied in the Geneva conventions, should have primacy over human rights law in the field of armed conflict. Addressing that issue was a manifesto commitment for this Government.
None the less, for reasons that I shall explain, I cannot invite the Committee to press this amendment. The Government are concerned about and determined to address the risks arising from developments in international human rights law, which have the potential to impose ever greater constraints on the ability of the Armed Forces and the MoD to operate effectively while defending the UK and its interests. As pledged in my party’s manifesto, the Government are absolutely committed to replacing the Human Rights Act, and will be consulting in due course on our proposals for a Bill of Rights. It is only right that that consultation should include the important question of how the Bill of Rights should apply outside the UK, and will ensure that all aspects of the change are properly and fully considered, not least its implications for the rights of our own Armed Forces, which would be affected by this measure. So I suggest that it is in the broader context of a Bill of Rights that these important issues are best considered. We are working closely with the Ministry of Justice as it develops its proposals.
I was very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for his intervention. When we speak about combat immunity, there are two issues that need to be distinguished, as he made clear. There are negligence claims and common law, where service personnel believe that the MoD or the Government have put them at undue risk—for example, due to decisions on procurements—and then there are human rights claims under the Human Rights Act or the ECHR, which are claims against the MoD brought either by service personnel in respect of injury or death or by civilians.
On the first of those categories, the negligence claims, I was grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord West. We are concerned that the Smith judgment has left the position on liability for events on the battlefield unclear. That is why we are considering legislation to bring about the necessary clarity. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked me what harm could result from the Smith case. My response is that, as my noble and learned friend explained, in the Smith case—with no disrespect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—there were such strong differences of opinion between members of the Supreme Court that it is reasonable for thought to be given to legislating.
We recognise that there is a concern about UK court decisions eroding the doctrine of combat immunity, which prevents legal claims being brought against the Government for negligence in the course of duty in armed conflict. However, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has indicated that his amendment would make provision only with respect to the second category that I mentioned, injury or death of members of the Armed Forces. It would not deal at all with claims brought against the MoD under human rights law in respect of the actions of members of the Armed Forces—for example, by Iraqi nationals. The Government are concerned about both classes of case, and our ongoing work relates to both.
I should make clear that my noble and learned friend’s amendment relates to human rights claims and those claims brought under the ECHR. We are concerned about both types of case and are examining them in the context of our work on the Bill of Rights.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked, in effect, why we could not legislate more speedily, perhaps through this Bill. I am as keen to make speed with this as he is but, alas, we are not quite yet ready. There are a number of areas that we are looking into, including examining different areas of legislation where changes could be made and what more we could do to support our Armed Forces personnel and their families. Work is under way, and we will be announcing further detail in due course.
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for raising this important issue today. It has been a truly excellent debate. I am confident that when we come to introduce our proposals for the Bill of Rights, we will address effectively the problem that is rightly of concern to him, and we will do so in the context of a much needed and thorough overhaul of our domestic human rights law. On that basis, I hope that my noble and learned friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it was never my intention to press this amendment. It was simply intended to raise these issues, which are extremely complicated. For example, in the case of Smith, Lord Mance pointed out that it is alleged that the major under whose command the firing tank was operating was told of the situation, and that there was a question in relation to the Snatch claims about whether the commander on the ground had chosen the particular vehicle that was involved in the incident. Although there is no question of anyone who was serving being involved in the claim against him, there is difficulty in finding out whether or not there has been a breach—for example, in relation to procurement or supply. You have to investigate the facts on the ground and the decisions of the commanders.
Perhaps I may take the example that the noble Lord, Lord West, gave of his own situation in the Falklands. My understanding is that, if there were a claim in relation to that by someone who had been severely injured and if the application of these principles that are being adumbrated came into play, the question of whether, for example, the anti-aircraft provision on the ship was adequate might have depended on where it was thought the ship would have gone. As I understand it, the difficulty was that when the ship got very closely inshore, the anti-aircraft provision was not adequate. If the ministry were being sued for failure to provide better anti-aircraft equipment—I am thinking of this as a possible scenario—there might be a question as to whether, in the circumstances of the engagement, the commander of the ship was required to go to a place where the anti-aircraft guns would not work properly or whether he could have operated effectively somewhere else. I do not imagine for a minute—
Lord West of Spithead
Perhaps I may interject for a moment. I could not possibly have gone anywhere else. I just want to make that clear.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Surely the judgment given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, makes that absolutely clear. The issue of the operational decisions in combat could not, in the view of the Supreme Court, be prayed in aid of negligence. The issue is those decisions not taken in a combat environment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I entirely agree. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made that as clear as he could. However, as Lord Mance pointed out, the problem is that, while that is the principle, it is quite difficult to apply in practice. If you are trying to sue the ministry, the question may be whether what happened on the ground followed what from the ministry had done. The Snatch case is the easiest one, in a way. I used the case of the noble Lord, Lord West, only because he mentioned it himself, but the Snatch case is perhaps the best example of where it is possible to say that the ministry provided the right equipment but the right vehicle was not picked. There are three vehicles waiting and you pick one. It is not the right one; the other two are somewhat different. I am not suggesting for a minute that the people who made the choice could be sued for negligence, but the question of whether or not the claim against the higher authority is made out may depend on the investigation of these things. That is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, was talking about.
As I said, I never intended to press this amendment at a later stage; I simply tabled it to raise the issues and to see what can be done. My approach would be that we should see what we want the final situation to be. We should forget what the human rights convention has to say. We should look at what we want and consider legislation. We should believe that if it is suitable legislation it will be covered by the margin of appreciation and that the human rights convention, which of course we cannot alter ourselves, will not be affected in any way. With great respect, as a result of all this debate, that is the approach that I would commend.
I am sorry that we have gone beyond the time when we were supposed to finish, but I regard myself as not completely responsible for that because things depend on what went before. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and I do not propose to raise it on Report.
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Lord Browne-Wilkinson
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Insurance Industry: Whiplash
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hayward
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to meet representatives of the insurance industry to discuss their treatment of claims for whiplash injuries.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, meetings have been held with representatives’ groups from both claimant and insurer sectors at both ministerial and official level to discuss the reforms announced in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement. Ministers and officials are continuing to engage with interested stakeholders as work on the detail of the Government’s whiplash reform programme develops.
Lord Hayward (Con)
When my noble friend next meets representatives of the industry, will he ask them to explain cases such as that of Mr John Elvin of Watford? Mr Elvin was involved in a negligible traffic incident where there was no apparent damage to either vehicle. At the first opportunity, he notified his insurers—esure—that he was subject to what he believed was going to be a false whiplash and damage claim. Despite a series of requests, esure has given no indication that it has investigated this case in any way. Is this not an example of the reason why the industry is known in this country as “the whiplash capital of the world”? It is the consumer who ultimately pays for this cavalier attitude.
Lord Faulks
My noble friend is quite right to draw the House’s attention to the very major problem of the significant increase in the number of claims and our large number of claims in comparison with other European countries. One of the reasons that insurers give for settling these claims is that it costs them too much to fight the case. Of course, if our plans to raise the small claims limit to £5,000 come into effect, this will no longer continue to be a valid reason for not contesting claims. Anyone who is notified of what sounds suspiciously like a fraud should not do anything to encourage it. If individuals are invited to take part in such an endeavour, they are potentially committing a criminal offence.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the court costs. Have the coalition’s policies of banning referral fees produced any results? Has the number of frauds gone down? Are there any statistics on that as yet, following the Insurance Act 2015?
Lord Faulks
The Government are attacking this problem on a number of different fronts. Referral fees is one; the LASPO reforms is another; and there is the MedCo portal, which means that all whiplash injuries must go via a neutral evaluation with limited costs. All are contributing to a decrease in the number of whiplash claims, but there are still too many, and we still feel that there is fraud at the root of all this.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, of course no one would defend fraudulent claims, whether for whiplash or other injuries. However, the raising of the small claims limit to £5,000 will represent a further reduction of access to justice to people and even businesses of modest means with valid claims. Given that the Government claim the insurance industry—in which motor insurers alone receive £15 billion a year in premiums—will save £1 billion from the increased limit, having already saved £7 billion in the last four years, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that any further savings from their latest surrender to the industry’s interests will be substantially passed on to policyholders? Or is this to compensate the industry for the insurance tax levy increase, which it will no doubt in any case pass on to policyholders?
Lord Faulks
There is no question of the Government surrendering to the insurance industry, as the noble Lord puts it. The insurers already announced that they will reduce the premiums to insurance companies by £50. We will watch insurance companies very carefully to see whether they translate their promises into action. Of course, as all noble Lords will know, insurance is a highly competitive world. All of us will have been irritated by the invitations to compare the market. Ultimately, the market should prevail.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, the whiplash phenomenon is thought to occur usually when a vehicle is struck heavily from behind, with the result that the passenger or driver in the vehicle that is hit has a sharp flexion of the neck followed by a sharp hyperextension. If it happens that the individual in question already has disc degeneration in the neck, there is no doubt at all that this may on occasions result in actual damage to the spinal cord with significant physical results. However, in the great majority of so-called whiplash cases, no organic abnormality can be detected. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that some of the claims for whiplash injuries are spurious. Having said that, is it not time yet again for the Government and the medical profession experts in this field to come together to see if they can promulgate some objective means of assessing the significance of these claims?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord, with his experience as a neurologist, highlights the complicated nature of this injury and the fact that it is not usually detectable on scans. He also made the point about pre-existing degenerative injury. The effort to achieve some sort of consensus among medical experts has been helped by the MedCo portal. It is remarkable how many of the reports now have a more favourable prognosis than used to be the case before it was introduced.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I declare my interests as set out in the register. Will my noble friend the Minister accept that there is serious concern not only in this House but also in the insurance industry at the way in which we have allowed a situation where 80% of all personal injury claims are said to be whiplash claims? Will he find some way of stopping these cold calls? One of my colleagues just had a cold call from a claims management company calling itself the “Department of Compensation”. Will my noble friend please get across to everyone that these people are potentially committing a very serious criminal offence?
Lord Faulks
My noble friend is, of course, absolutely right. The Government are determined to stamp down on this. Legislation is already in place, primarily enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Government have recently consulted on bringing forward secondary legislation to require all direct marketing callers to provide their calling line identification. Individuals can have a Telephone Preference Service installed on their telephones and we are also exploring the possibility of call-blocking devices for vulnerable consumers.
When somebody rings me, as they do from time to time, inviting me to take part in a fraud, I endeavour to extract details from them without revealing the position I hold. Unfortunately, my voice appears to cause them only to put down the phone.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the rate of whiplash claims in Britain is 20 times as high as it is in France? Have we something to learn from our friends across the channel?
Lord Faulks
It is surprising that that comparison should take place at this particular time in the political weather. The noble Lord is quite right. Some 9%, or 225,000, of bodily injuries in France were whiplash, but 76%, or 375,000, in the United Kingdom were.
Armed Services: War Crimes
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it is their position that the proper law for determining whether British troops have committed war crimes should be the laws of armed conflict, otherwise known as international humanitarian law, rather than the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks)
My Lords, international humanitarian law and domestic criminal law are the bodies of law to determine whether British troops have committed war crimes. Our Armed Forces are among the best in the world and operate to the highest standards of discipline. The forthcoming Bill of Rights will protect their ability to do their jobs without being subject to persistent human rights claims.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Does the Minister agree that British troops should only be sued for violation of human rights if they have already been convicted of crimes contrary to the laws of armed conflict?
Lord Faulks
All our troops should, of course, be subject to the law: none is above it. However, the question of the Human Rights Act raises rather different matters. There has been a number of claims based on alleged contraventions of the convention and, thus, the Human Rights Act. These have caused considerable —and sometimes unjustified—difficulties for soldiers and the Armed Forces. This is why our forthcoming Bill of Rights will attempt to deal with these persistent human rights claims.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, long-retired members of our military who fought for us in Northern Ireland are open to arrest, bail and investigation for events that happened up to 40 years ago. Is it true that members of the retired military community who believe there is no even-handedness between the treatment of the terrorists who are trying to kill us and the military who are protecting us are raising with the PSNI a raft of incidents—some 40 so far—where members of the IRA and splinter-IRA have killed or maimed uniformed people? How are these cases being taken forward?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord makes a good point. I am unable to answer his specific query, but the Prime Minister has tasked the National Security Council to produce a comprehensive plan to stamp out this industry of claims, which is causing precisely the sort of difficulties which the noble Lord has highlighted.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, will the Government introduce any form of Crown immunity for operations overseas?
Lord Faulks
The noble and gallant Lord asks an entirely pertinent question. The Prime Minister has asked the Defence and Justice Secretaries to prepare a legislative package to redress the balance. That is clearly one of the matters under consideration, as is derogation from the Human Rights Act. There are a number of other matters which I would rather not go into detail about now, but I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that all these matters will be carefully considered.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
Is not the Minister in some difficulty in his replies? So long as we remain bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and subject to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court, if the Minister and his colleagues introduce a new-fangled Bill of Rights that in any way is incompatible with the convention, it would be futile because the Strasbourg court—if not our own courts—will rule on that incompatibility. Is it not better, therefore, to answer this Question by indicating that for the sake of our soldiers, sailors and airmen, as well as others, we need the proper law to be both a human rights law and international humanitarian law?
Lord Faulks
I am sure that the noble Lord will not have forgotten the margin of appreciation. Provided our British Bill of Rights respects the European convention but tailors it to suit the particular challenges that the military faces, it is likely that Strasbourg will respect our interpretation. Of course, we will continue to protect human rights under any regime that exists, and also to respect our international humanitarian law obligations.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the French, much earlier on, exempted their armed forces from prosecution under the Human Rights Act, so we would be following an excellent precedent?
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to my noble friend. We are aware of that and it is a matter that shall be taken into consideration.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister was unable to answer the specific point raised by my noble friend Lord West of Spithead in relation to Ireland. Would he be kind enough to write to him on that?
Lord Faulks
I am happy to do that when I have the relevant information to hand.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, given that there can be no blanket, technical explanation for these circumstances, is the Minister prepared to give an undertaking that where a soldier, sailor or airman acts in palpable good faith, there will be a presumption by the Government to stand with him and behind him in his defence against any action that might be taken against him?
Lord Faulks
The Government always stand behind our soldiers but to give a blanket undertaking like that would be exceeding my authority. With regard to battlefield immunity, which the noble Lord may be referring to, combat immunity remains part of the common law, although its contours are rather unclear at the moment, particularly in light of the Smith v Ministry of Defence case about the interrelationship of the Human Rights Act and that immunity. These are matters on which the Prime Minister and the Government are profoundly exercised.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (LD)
Will the Minister allow, under the current military law, for some information to be given to the families of the military police who were killed in Karmat Ali, and which they have so far not received. I was in that city the day after the deaths and all the information is readily available. When will the ministry allow it to be released to the families concerned?
Lord Faulks
I will take that request back to the Ministry of Justice and try to have some inquiries made.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, when can we look forward to the draft Bill of Rights and will its timing be affected by the EU referendum?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, we are in the hands of the Prime Minister, who has a number of elections to consider —local elections, elections of the devolved assemblies, and the small matter of the European referendum. Noble Lords may have to wait a little longer, but it will of course be well worth waiting for.
London: Housing Costs
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to help people on the living wage in London to own their own homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this Government are working closely with the mayor and the GLA on measures to increase supply and boost home ownership for all Londoners. These include London Help to Buy, which provides equity loans of up to 40% of a property’s price to homebuyers in the capital, and London shared ownership, which could see Londoners in a borough such as Lewisham buying a home with a deposit of as little as £3,500.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, first I declare an interest as a councillor of the London Borough of Lewisham. The Minister recently confirmed to me in a Moses Room debate:
“I agree that not everybody will be able to afford a starter home”.—[Official Report, 22/2/16; col. GC 40.]
There lies the problem. Funds are being diverted into the starter home scheme, for homes which are unaffordable to most people on modest incomes, from other housing schemes. Why does the Minister think it is acceptable that the Government are reducing the options for people on modest incomes and the living wage, who are often at the poorer end of the private rented sector, which will mean that often their dream of owning their own home will remain only a dream?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there are a number of products on offer to first-time buyers, including shared ownership, which might require a deposit of as little as £1,400. There is Rent to Buy and a number of other products should people want home ownership.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, three weeks ago today the Minister answered a Question about the £140 million that the Prime Minister had announced for estate renewal. We now understand that that £140 million was payable as a loan—it is seed corn that you have to give back. Was the Minister aware at that time that it was a loan? If she was, why did she not tell the House? If she was not, what is going wrong at the Department for Communities?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the day that I answered the Question on estates regeneration was the day that the panel met for the first time. I was not aware of the actual structure of the fund, but perhaps that is understandable given that the panel had yet to meet when I answered the Question.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, will the Government consider restricting the 20% discount for first-time buyers to present occupants of social housing? That would immediately release a dwelling for rent.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the 20% discount for the starter home is to address a specific need in a specific demographic: first-time buyers under the age of 40, whose ability to purchase a home has declined dramatically over the past few decades. This priority is an attempt to address that.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, on 26 October I reminded the Minister that according to Shelter research an annual income of at least £77,000 would be needed to purchase just an average starter home in London, and I asked her what the Government’s estimate was of the number of people who were likely to access starter homes in London. She was unable to answer the question then. Would she like to have another go now?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it is very difficult to tell these things until the policy is under way. But the average starter home in London is estimated to be about £318,000; in England, excluding London, it is £145,000. So a joint income of significantly less than that outside London would make a starter home much more affordable. But of course there are things such as the Help to Buy ISA, which will help people save up for their deposit. I am sure that as this policy develops and we get the figures in, I will be able to inform the noble Lord.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, as of December 2015 the Mortgage Advice Bureau stated that the average down payment for a London home is £179,248. How can any young couple, never mind those on the lower living wage, afford such a price?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, products such as the Help to Buy ISA and the equity loan that the Government are proposing to raise from 20% to 40% in London should help first-time buyers. But I appreciate that house prices in London are not cheap.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, there is much concern that the focus on starter homes could threaten the provision of alternative housing schemes that are more suitable for those on low incomes, such as shared ownership. Will the Minister assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government’s emphasis on these starter homes will be in addition to other affordable schemes such as shared ownership rather than replacing them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can certainly assure the right reverend Prelate that the £4.1 billion that the Government are putting into shared-ownership homes, to achieve 175,000, demonstrates their commitment to things other than starter homes.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that a Conservative MP has moved back in with his parents because he cannot afford to buy a home anywhere near here? What signal does that give that we should have confidence in the measures that she is talking about?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, funnily enough that Conservative MP was at my house on Saturday night, and we were talking about this—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I assure noble Lords that he is not living with me. When he was standing for election, he did move back in with his parents. I think that he is something like 26 years of age, and we are absolutely committed to providing starter homes for people in that age group.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister been following the progress of the project being promoted by an organisation called London Citizens, which is developing a site on Mile End Road in London—the former St Clement’s mental hospital? It can sell flats at a fraction of the normal price that properties are being sold for in London because of the way that it handles the land value. Might Ministers have a look at that project and see whether any lessons can be learned, particularly while the Housing and Planning Bill is going through the House of Lords?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am afraid to tell the noble Lord that I have not heard of the scheme but I would be very interested to hear about it. If he could write to me, I certainly would be interested to have a look at it.
Calais: “Jungle” Camp
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what views they have expressed to the government of France about the bulldozing of the south section of the Calais “Jungle” camp.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the management of migrant camps is the responsibility of the French Government. I understand that the French authorities have increased the capacity in alternative accommodation for vulnerable groups. We are in close touch with the French Government, and the UK has pledged £7.2 million to provide help and facilities for migrants at centres in Calais and elsewhere in France.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, having visited the camps in both Calais and Dunkirk, I am more convinced than ever that the protection of children and the protection of refugees are two of the most important pillars of international law. However, the violent images on our TV screens show that the French and British Governments have failed to uphold either in Calais. Will the Minister urge the Prime Minister to set up the processes necessary to assess the rights of the estimated 300 unaccompanied children in Calais, rather than hide behind the skirts of dysfunctional Dublin III regulations?
Lord Bates
We are certainly aware of the situation, which is very difficult for the French Government. They have tried to deal with it correctly: they have applied to the courts for the right to take the actions they have taken and have provided another 100 welcome centres across France to look after these people. The reality is that no one needs to be in those camps. If they are seeking asylum, they should claim it in France. They will then enter the asylum system, and if they have a claim to family reunion in the UK, that can be dealt with expeditiously. We announced just yesterday that through the exchanges of key personnel, we are increasing interoperability between the two departments to ensure that that happens within two months.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Prime Minister was guilty of pathetic scaremongering when he suggested that if we leave the EU, France will allow the refugees through to set up camp in Kent? Would it not be the duty of government to stop them at our border and would those who did get through not simply disperse into our community, which is, after all, where they want to go?
Lord Bates
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to point out that the protection of our borders is inextricably linked to co-operation with our European partners. The migrant crisis shows that very clearly. On the other hand, our relationship with France, particularly over Coquelles, is the result of the Le Touquet treaty, which was negotiated bilaterally between the UK and France. We have similar understandings with Belgium, the Netherlands and, of course, the Republic of Ireland. So both hold true.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, while we would all agree that the situation is difficult for the French authorities, I am sure we also feel that it is significantly more difficult for the 300 unaccompanied children. I recently visited the Marsh Academy near Romney Marsh and saw a school and community fostering and caring with the utmost compassion for significant numbers of unaccompanied children. Given that example, does the Minister agree that issues of compassion should easily trump those of administrative efficiency and tidiness, and narrow definitions of family links, and that we should, therefore, take more children very quickly?
Lord Bates
Of course that is true but, on compassion, the Prime Minister said in September that we would bring 1,000 people into the country by Christmas, and so far we have 1,200, half of whom are children. The case in Romney Marsh that the most reverend Primate mentions, is in Kent, which has a particular responsibility in this respect, in terms of the numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arriving there and needing to be cared for. I was very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who undertook to write to other authorities about taking more of these unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, to share the burden that currently falls too heavily on Kent.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
A tribunal has recently ruled that the unaccompanied children with a strong claim to be in this country under the Dublin regulations should be able to come to the UK to be in the care of their close family while they make their applications. Do the Government now intend to let some or all of the estimated 150 such unaccompanied children in Calais who have a strong claim to be in this country under the Dublin regulations, also now come to the UK to be in the care of their families while they make their applications?
Lord Bates
The protection of children is paramount in this situation. There should be no child in Calais who is not being encouraged by all authorities to claim asylum there. Once they claim asylum there, they enter the multilateral Dublin agreement, and then their claims can be expedited to ensure that they are reunited with their families—if they have families in the UK—and, if not, more importantly, that they get the protection they need from the dreadful conditions we have seen and heard about.
Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)
My Lords, given the widespread and justifiable concern about the unaccompanied children in these camps, can my noble friend tell the House what age these children are and how they got to the camps unaccompanied in the first place?
Lord Bates
Of the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arriving in the UK, 61% are aged 16 or over and only 7% are under 14. Another point to bear in mind is where they come from; it may be of interest to the House that they come from Eritrea, Afghanistan and Albania. As for how they get here, a chilling report from Europol estimated that 90% of all people seeking asylum in the European Union have got to Europe by paying criminal gangs.
Housing and Planning Bill
Earl Cathcart
“Requirements relating to tenancy deposits: relevant persons
(1) The Housing Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) In section 213 (requirements relating to tenancy deposits)—(a) in subsection (5) omit “and any relevant person”;(b) in subsection (6) omit “and any relevant person”;(c) in subsection (10) omit all the words after the second “property” to the end of the subsection.(3) In section 214 (proceedings relating to tenancy deposits), in subsection (1) omit “or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10))”.”
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, the first two amendments are in the name of my noble friend Lord Flight, who, unfortunately, cannot be here today. I should declare that I am a landlord.
My noble friend’s Amendment 24 provides that the relevant persons concept be removed, on the grounds that it is confusing and gives little or no protection to tenants. Where someone other than the tenant contributes to or pays in full the deposit for a home, they, as well as the tenant, are required to be given the prescribed information. Such a person is known as the relevant person. Failure to give the prescribed information leads to financial penalties, and the landlord’s inability to recover possession of their property should the need arise.
There is little need for this requirement, as the arrangement between the tenant and the relevant person is private, one that the landlord is not required to know about, despite being required to provide the relevant person with information. After all, the contract is between the landlord and the tenant, not some third party. Obviously, if the third party is party to the contract—for example, acting as a guarantor—that third party would and should receive the relevant information as to the whereabouts of a deposit, but not if the third party just helps out with the deposit. Surely that is a private matter between the third party and the tenant. A provision which can be forgotten about easily creates a needless trap for landlords, who are potentially hostage to unscrupulous tenants entering into such an arrangement and then seeking to conceal it from the landlord, who is left in breach of his obligations.
My noble friend’s second amendment concerns providing information electronically. Landlords are legally responsible for ensuring that deposits provided for a rented property are kept safe for the duration of the tenancy in an official tenancy deposit scheme. They are obliged to provide the tenant with details of where the deposit has been secured, known as the prescribed information. At present, the prescribed information must be issued to the tenant in paper form. In houses of multiple occupation, this can lead to volumes of paper.
The amendment would enable legal information on the location of deposit money, once secured in an official scheme, to be provided to tenants electronically. This already applies to some other communications, including the How to Rent guide, but would be best applied across the board, including to gas safety certificates and tenancy agreements. A recent survey of landlords found that 91% would prefer to send prescribed information to a tenant by email; 92% felt that their tenants would prefer such information to be sent by email and the emails stored; and 95% felt that serving information electronically would make the administration of letting out a property more efficient. We are constantly told that we now live in a paperless society, so it seems archaic to insist that prescribed information should continue to be sent only by paper.
My Amendments 26 and 31 are designed to address a particular issue which some landlords and tenants can face when seeking to reclaim a tenancy deposit held by the custodial tenancy deposit scheme. Under the Housing Act 2004, landlords are required to protect tenancy deposits by either registering the deposit with an insured tenancy deposit scheme or physically transferring the tenancy deposit given by a tenant to a custodial tenancy deposit scheme, which holds the deposit during the tenancy. The Government have included in the Bill a streamlined repossession procedure when a tenant has abandoned the property. This presents an opportunity to amend Schedule 10 to the Housing Act 2004 to similarly streamline the custodial deposit repayment procedure where a tenant or landlord is not contactable at the end of the tenancy.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, as this is my first intervention in Committee, I draw attention to my various housing and planning interests on the register.
Amendment 33B, to which I am pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has added his name, seeks to address, in a modest way, the key issue that arises in this Bill. That issue, for me and I think many others in your Lordships’ House, is that the Bill seeks to do good things in increasing the supply of housing and supporting first-time home buyers, but it neglects, indeed disadvantages, those who simply cannot become owner-occupiers. While there is widespread support for the Bill’s measures to help more young people to buy, there is also widespread alarm that this is not additional to helping the less affluent but is in place of doing so. We are worried that the options for poorer households are being closed off. Councils and housing associations, as we will be exploring in later amendments, are likely to be doing less for those on average and below-average incomes. Where, then, can these families and single people go?
This amendment seeks to put in place one small but significant opportunity for the Government to assist those who, with all the good will in the world, are not going to be buying a property anytime soon, yet are most unlikely to obtain council or housing association accommodation. It would give the Secretary of State the power to underwrite a national scheme that enables organisations like Crisis—the leading charity in this field—to give private landlords a guarantee against damage, rent arrears et cetera. Where there is a bond guarantee, the landlord does not need the usual month’s rent as a deposit. As well as overcoming an insuperable barrier for a tenant with very little money, this approach avoids the administration in collecting, chasing up and returning deposits.
Now that social housing is so hard to come by, this is seldom a possibility for single homeless people since they are unlikely to get classified as in “priority need”. Even where the local authorities have a legal duty to find accommodation for homeless households, the majority of councils now look to the private rented sector to discharge that duty. This sector may be far from ideal for many people in terms of security, affordability and quality, but it is now the only answer in so many cases. The problem is that, since private landlords are not charities and are running their businesses, they do not want to take risks so even this avenue is blocked for many applicants.
The latest survey commissioned by Crisis from Sheffield Hallam University shows that 55% of landlords are unwilling to take in anyone in receipt of housing benefit, not least because the local housing allowance does not cover all their rent, and 82% of landlords were unwilling to rent to homeless people. So numbers are growing of people in bed-and-breakfast hotels or hostels, or indeed living on the streets. This is vastly more expensive than finding a place for them in the private rented sector.
With a rent deposit guarantee in their armoury, local PRS access schemes have something concrete to offer private landlords. There are currently over 280 of these schemes, many supported by Crisis with funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government. I should say in passing that the future of this grant aid is now unclear and I hope DCLG is minded to renew it. An evaluation by Sheffield Hallam University found that in four years these PRS access schemes had secured homes for 8,000 people who had been homeless and these tenancies were shown to be sustained in 90% of cases.
Bond guarantees mean these local groups can overcome the huge and understandable reluctance of landlords to take any risks in whom they house. What is needed is watertight government backing which local PRS access schemes can deploy. Only that part of the guarantee which gets called down actually costs any public money. Experience shows that in only about 15 to 20% of cases is the bond called upon at all, and in many of these instances the amount claimed is relatively modest. Compared with the bricks-and-mortar cost of a new home, this government subvention is miniscule and it achieves immediate revenue savings.
This amendment, therefore, paves the way for a national deposit bond guarantee scheme, along with a set of quality standards for the organisations who could draw upon it. As so many doors close on housing for those in the most acute need, this arrangement would give Government the chance to be helpful in a modest but important way. Since it also saves public money into the bargain, I hope the Minister finds it appealing. After all, we will shortly be discussing the very generous guaranteed support for home buyers that to date requires underwriting to the tune of £9.7 billion—hundreds of times more than this guarantee scheme that would enable much poorer people to get a roof over their heads.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, on their practical and sensible amendments, which I hope the Government will accept. In terms of difficulties for people, we are dealing with a sensitive area because their homes are at stake. It is quite reasonable to adopt the proposals that we have just heard outlined in detail, and we support both amendments.
My amendment, Amendment 28, is rather different. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the tenancy deposit scheme, which was introduced in the Housing Act 2004. One reads from time to time of difficulties experienced by tenants, in particular, although it could also, I suppose, be landlords who have difficulties, in recovering deposits they have paid. Very often, one reads that allegations are made that the tenant has damaged the property and so forth. Given that usually not large sums are at stake, it seems to be the case that some tenants give up the ghost rather than pursue the matter. There is a scheme for dispute resolution, which is operated by the relevant agency without charge. However, it is not binding on both parties to accept the scheme’s involvement, so if a landlord, or it could arguably be a tenant, is at the wrong end of a claim, the other party would have to seek redress through the courts. We have already had a reference to the small claims limit this afternoon, and it is probable that most deposits would be within the range of up to £5,000. No legal aid is available and no costs are recoverable on a successful claim. This is going to make it less likely than ever that tenants will exercise their right to recover a deposit which is being wrongfully withheld.
I have only one relatively direct experience of this matter inasmuch as the daughter of a Newcastle City councillor colleague of mine and her two friends were living in accommodation in London and had paid a deposit. Issues arose about to whom the deposit had been paid and so forth. It dragged on for a considerable time. It was clearly necessary for these three young people to get some legal advice—fortunately for them, they were not seeking it from me—but it got a little too much for at least two of the three tenants, and they decided that they would rather move on and forget about it. However, they lost a modest sum of money, by most people’s standards, but money they could ill afford to do without.
This amendment is calling only for the Government to review the operation of the scheme. It has now been in existence for 11 or 12 years. I do not know whether it has been reviewed before, but given the pressure on the private rented sector, which has grown considerably with the proportion of private rented properties in the market in the order of, I think, 20%, whereas a few years ago it used to be 9% or 10%, it is a growing area and the issue of deposits potentially becomes a matter of growing concern.
I hope the Minister will indicate the Government’s willingness to inquire into this. There are various agencies and interest groups which would no doubt be willing to collaborate. It would be as well to institute such a review at an early stage and then, if necessary, to amend the scheme or amend the 2004 Act, in particular, to see that proper accessible protection can be afforded to those who might be at risk of unscrupulous landlords, in this case, taking advantage of them and relying on them to give up the ghost before seeking redress, which is difficult and potentially expensive to obtain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cathcart for explaining on behalf of my noble friend Lord Flight the reasons behind Amendments 24 and 25. If enacted, Amendment 24 would remove the requirement for a landlord to notify a “relevant person” that their tenant’s deposit has been secured in a Government-authorised tenancy deposit protection scheme.
Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004 defines a relevant person as,
“any person who, in accordance with arrangements made with the tenant, paid the deposit on behalf of the tenant”.
This can be a family member but in most cases it is a charity such as Crisis or Shelter, which offers deposit loan schemes to vulnerable people with a history of homelessness, or a local authority, which pays the deposit through housing benefit in cases where tenants are out of work or on a low income.
I welcome proposals which reduce burdens for business and I understand the spirit in which this amendment has been tabled. However, the proposals set out in Amendment 24 have the potential to adversely affect the willingness of a charity or a local authority to pay a deposit on behalf of a tenant. This could lead to vulnerable people or those on low incomes being unable to access the private rented sector, which is something we would want to avoid.
Amendment 25 would allow tenancy deposit protection information to be provided to the tenant by their landlord electronically by email. The Government welcome proposals that seek to reduce burdens on business but in this case primary legislation is not required. The aim of this amendment can be achieved through secondary legislation, using powers in the Electronic Communications Act 2000. I will be happy to look further into the proposals outside this Chamber and consider introducing secondary legislation at a later date. I hope that this explanation will reassure my noble friend and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Amendments 26 and 31, which were tabled by my noble friend Lord Cathcart, seek to reduce the time taken to repay a deposit to a tenant or landlord where either party is absent or unco-operative. I accept that there is a minor cost to a landlord or tenant in arranging for a solicitor or magistrate to witness a statutory declaration, but this process is necessary for the landlord or tenant to prove beyond any doubt that they have attempted to contact the other party and that they have not been able to reach an agreement on the amount claimed from the deposit before it is repaid. The example that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, gave just before he sat down underlines this. Removing the requirement could leave the process open to abuse, with no independent verification that the other party had been contacted to give their consent. With this explanation, and given that the vast majority of claims are settled without a problem, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Amendment 28, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, would require a review of the tenancy deposit scheme. I understand that this amendment has been tabled in order to ensure that tenants are treated fairly at the end of their tenancy, and I know that we can all agree with that aim. My department has a governance role to ensure that the schemes are working well. The performance of the schemes is monitored through monthly key performance indicators, regular governance meetings and information provided by the tenancy deposit scheme users’ group, which includes landlord and consumer representatives.
From the overall feedback received, we are satisfied that the alternative dispute resolution system generally works well. Of the 11.5 million deposits which have been protected since the launch of the scheme, less than 2% have gone to adjudication. On average, following adjudication, 27% are awarded to tenants, 17% to landlords or agents, and just over half are split between the two sides.
Looking to the future, we are satisfied that the tenancy deposit protection schemes awarded contracts for new custodial schemes from 1 April this year have the necessary alternative dispute resolution processes in place to ensure that tenants will continue to be treated fairly. This was a key evaluation criterion in our re-procurement exercise carried out last year.
In conclusion, I hope that this explanation will assure noble Lords that tenants’ deposits are and will continue to be returned to them fairly and quickly at the end of the tenancy, and I hope that they will not press their amendments.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 33B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kennedy, which gives the Secretary of State powers to underwrite a national tenancy deposit bond guarantee scheme. In 2014-15, 220,000 households were prevented from becoming homeless. Of these, 54% were assisted to remain in their own home and 46% were helped to a new home. Statistics show that in at least 42% of cases households were assisted into private rented sector accommodation. In support of this, many local authorities, housing associations and charities in England already have a rent deposit or bond scheme.
The Government have already funded Crisis to the tune of nearly £14 million to develop a programme to help single homeless people to access the private rented sector. Nearly 9,000 single homeless people have been helped into private rented sector accommodation so far, with a 90% tenancy sustainment rate. This Government’s approach is to support a provision of resources to local authorities at a local level. This is because they can then use the funding flexibly to meet local needs. Of course, different areas have particular requirements. To divert scarce funding into a single national approach would not always be the best or most effective use of resources and to specifically underwrite a national scheme may not be the best use of resources.
I hope that this explanation will reassure noble Lords and I hope that they will not press their amendments. But before I sit down I will answer a specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the DCLG continuing to fund the private rented sector access programme. We have not made any decision on further funding, but from the start of the programme all funded schemes were required to attract funding from other sources and make plans for future sustainability. I will keep the noble Lord updated on this.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I think her response to the national rent deposit guarantee scheme is quite disappointing. Will she say why? She said that a number of authorities have these schemes, but what is the objection to having a national scheme? We are talking about very modest sums of money.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think that the noble Lord will accept that the fact that the scheme is currently working very well and that some local authorities may actually decide to underwrite the schemes themselves in certain cases to prevent homelessness is—and we are looking after every single penny—a reason not to do something unless there is evidence to say that we would need to do it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
I am aware that this is Committee stage. How many local authorities have such schemes in place, and what would be the additional cost, in the Minister’s estimate, of producing a national scheme?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
May I come back to the noble Baroness on those specific details?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Of course, but I would have thought that if the Minister was responding on cost plans, she might have the information.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That is very true. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I will come back to her. I may well have those figures in my notes, and, during the course of Committee, I will come back to her.
Lord Beecham
I wish to return to the issue of the deposit scheme. The noble Baroness relies on the apparent success of the alternative dispute resolution scheme. She is right to do so for those who use that scheme, but of course the scheme is, in a sense, optional. Both parties have to agree to use the resolution scheme. If one party does not—and it might well be the landlord—then there is no resolution through that mechanism, so merely quoting the figures which are produced by that scheme does not necessarily reflect the situation in the marketplace. I do not know whether the Minister has or can procure any evidence of the incidence of problems outside the ADR scheme, or what the impact might be of making it not a matter to be agreed between the parties, but something in place for either party without necessarily having to sign up to an agreement. That might be a way of facilitating access to the scheme, usually for tenants, who would otherwise have to deploy other methods, including possibly their own resources. For the reasons I have already given, that will often be difficult.
With respect, while the ADR scheme is very useful, it does not necessarily cover the whole area. My amendment seeks the involvement of the Government in looking at the situation in the remaining area and deciding whether changes need to be made. I hope the noble Baroness will agree to have another look at that aspect of it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will look at it again, but this is covered in How to Rent. I certainly know from my own experience, and I declare a past interest in this, that within a certain period from the start of a tenancy—I think it is 28 days—not only does the tenancy deposit scheme have to be set up, but the landlord has to produce the certificate in the house. We talked about an electronic version of it. Alarm bells should ring for a tenant if such a scheme has not been set up and evidence produced of it, but maybe I am not getting the right end of the stick.
Lord Beecham
I understand the difficulties of all this, but I do not think that the noble Baroness quite has the point. You can enter into the scheme but, as I understand it, it requires both parties to agree to the alternative resolution of a problem. If one party—usually the landlord—does not, that way of disposing of the matter does not exist. The question therefore is: what other methods are available and how can the system be improved? One way is to make not just the deposit but use of ADR compulsory where there is a dispute. Perhaps that is worth looking at but, as my amendment suggests, an overview of the whole situation would be a useful start.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will go away and explore the points that the noble Lord has made. I will write to him.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I will come back briefly to the national deposit scheme. When the noble Baroness writes to my noble friend about the amount of money and the authorities involved in such schemes, will she also say what percentage of tenants are protected by them, and about the thought processes behind how the Government decided not to go for the national scheme? I think she will say that most of it is covered, but what consultation took place to decide not to come forward with a national scheme?
Earl Cathcart
I think my noble friend has finally sat down. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for supporting all the amendments. I only wish that the Minister’s response had been the same. Unfortunately, it was rather like a curate’s egg—good in parts. I thank her for agreeing to take away the idea of giving the information electronically. However, I am disappointed in her response to the other two amendments I spoke to. I will read what she said and no doubt my noble friend Lord Flight and I may come back to her, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Security of tenure
(1) After section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 (assured shorthold tenancies) insert—“19B Minimum length of certain assured shorthold tenanciesAny assured shorthold tenancy (other than one where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing) granted on or after 1 April 2018 must be for a fixed term of at least thirty-six months, and it is an implied term of such a tenancy that the tenant may terminate the tenancy by giving two months’ written notice to the landlord.”(2) In section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (recovery of possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy), after subsection (4) insert—“(4ZZA) In the case of a dwelling house in England, no notice under subsection (4) may be given before the end of the period of thirty-six months beginning with the first day of the tenancy.””
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I declare an interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. Amendment 29 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham seeks to amend the Housing Act 1988 to make the minimum length of an assured shorthold tenancy granted on or after 1 April 2018 a fixed period of 36 months. Most assured shorthold tenancies usually last between six and 12 months at present. The contract says how much rent to pay, how long the tenancy lasts and who is responsible for the repairs. The landlord cannot increase the rent during the fixed term of the assured shorthold tenancy unless the contract sets that out. When the tenancy ends and the tenant decides they wish to sign up for a further fixed period the rent can be increased in the new agreement.
Even an assured shorthold tenancy for one year is a relatively short time and this amendment seeks to give tenants a longer period to live in a property, enjoy more security and put down some proper roots. It is a longer period than at present but not excessively long. The private rented sector is increasing all the time, and providing more stability and a longer tenure for tenants must be right. We hear of “generation rent”—people not being able to afford to buy their own home and more people living in properties they have to move round from more regularly. That is not good for them or the wider community. It is not great for landlords either.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I hate to voice a tone of slight dissent from what the noble Lord has introduced because I know where he is coming from. I declare an interest because I am a private rented sector landlord. Some of our assured shorthold tenants had six months or one-year lettings originally and now double-digit years later are still there, with or without dependent children. I think we have seen at least two families grow up and the next generation start to fly the nest. I am very proud of that. The critical point is that there is no bar in letting longer term at present.
There are also many reasons why it is convenient for both parties to rent shorter term. I live in an area that is customarily known as the “Gatwick diamond”. It is an area of Sussex and part of Surrey where the great driver is the industrial and commercial activity associated with Gatwick Airport. Many people move in or have temporary secondments to places such as that or indeed may be seconded elsewhere to postings abroad for varying times—six, 12, 18 months and so on. This applies whether they are landlord or tenant. Whether it is job secondment, moving home or being in the process of selling a property somewhere else and moving in, my wife and I have a constant source of applicants for accommodation. There is a need for the short term—it is very important and part of the fluidity of this section of the market.
Another thing I would be slightly fearful of in the noble Lord’s amendment is when a buy-to-let situation exists on that sort of mortgage. The deferral of the reversion might have undesirable effects in terms of how the mortgagee would see the risk. A mortgagee, of course, needs to be in a position to lay claim to the property and dispose of it on the open market to redeem the mortgage, and needs to be able to do so at reasonably short notice. That obviously should not be operated to the disadvantage of a contractual tenant under an AST, but if it is deferred for three years, I can see that that might interfere with the way in which a mortgagee could perceive that particular bit of the risk.
The basic premise is a little bit unbalanced as between the parties. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord here, but not every part of the country and not every sector suffer from the issue that I suspect this amendment is trying to address. The private rented sector is important. I like to think that most private sector landlords think as I do, offering a quality product and treating our tenants as decent people, as human beings, as neighbours, as friends and, indeed, seeing their children grow up and taking great pleasure in that.
However, we have been down this road before on creeping security of tenure. Memories are quite long in that respect. I remember that from the 1960s until the 1980s the private rented sector was more or less annihilated in all but name. I would not like to think that the message here is that this is a harbinger of that situation. With the benefit of those thoughts, I suggest that the Committee should not go along with this amendment, although I have some sympathy with the rationale behind it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I very much support my noble friend’s amendment, which proposes that any tenancy must be offered for a fixed period of three years. Of course, there may be people who have sold a house and are waiting to buy who need a short tenancy, or there may be students who want it for less than a year—nine months, perhaps—and will then move on. Obviously, no one is saying that any tenant and landlord should be locked into it irrespective. The tenants themselves will be the best judge of how long they are likely to need that tenancy.
As it stands, all the power is with the landlord. I was interested to hear in the speeches opposing this no recognition of the fact that something like a third of all privately rented property is below the decency standard and that if any tenant in that situation asks for repairs, they risk—I am not saying it will happen—losing the right to extend their tenancy. After six months, 12 months, or whenever that tenancy is up for renewal, they can and will be out. As a result, we know, not just from Crisis and Shelter, but from our own environmental health officers in local authorities, how often tenants are afraid to require repairs to be done because if they do, they will lose their home. There is too much of an imbalance of power between the landlord and the tenant, given the legal situation in tenancies, the level of rents and the shortage of supply.
Who is most interested in six-month, short-term tenancies? It is not necessarily the landlord. A good landlord may be delighted to have a long-stay tenant without the risk of voids, the cost of churn and so on. I am sure that there are many such landlords in that situation; I do not doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is one such.
Who does have an interest? The letting agencies, of course. Every time there is a new letting after six months, they get a new set of fees. The six-month limited tenancy is gold to the letting agencies. It is desperate news for tenants who might need repairs. There is also a problem in respect of mortgage providers: I understand that only a couple of building societies, one of which is Nationwide, are willing to underwrite buy-to-let where the assured tenancy is likely to last for more than six months. Therefore, everything colludes to prevent a good landlord doing what he might like to do and to prevent tenants having the security of putting down roots in their community. It is not in the interest of a bad landlord who does not want to do repairs; it is not in the interest of the letting agency; it is not in the interest of the mortgage providers. There is, therefore, a complete imbalance of power. I am not speaking about those tenants who, quite rightly, see the rented sector as a temporary tenure on their way through to either a different home in a different part of the country or to a different form of tenure. I am talking about those who are locked into the private rented sector with children who need to go to schools, with GPs’ surgeries that they need to get placements in, and who may have a disability in the family and need the support of neighbours who will help them. They should not be at the whim of a bad landlord, a bad letting agency and overly risk-averse mortgage providers for buy-to-let.
This amendment would say that that tenancy must be offered; rogue tenants would be sent on their way, as they should be. It would help good tenants and strengthen the arm of good landlords to provide what is needed, which is homes in which people can put down their roots.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, will the noble Baroness comment on the following scenario, which happens very often in the part of the world I inhabit? A family takes a foreign posting; they have a house in the UK and the posting is, perhaps, for a year, which is quite common. During that year, they wish to let the house that they own in the UK. When they come back from that foreign posting, however, they need the house back. In the circumstances that would occur under this amendment, they would not be in a position, as I understand it, to let for a certain period of a year and get their house back. Might I have the noble Baroness’s observations on that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, in that situation I would expect there to be an agreement. Where a landlord is seeking to regain possession for their personal use—as their own home—that, in my understanding, has always been recognised in law as a different situation from someone being a permanent landlord and seeking merely to churn their tenants.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I am very interested in this subject—noble Lords know my interests as declared—and I am interested in what is being said today. I think the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, deals with a market that he clearly understands well, and that is interesting. However, I have had many different comments and reports sent to me by different people. My own personal experience is that, when I offer people two years, they say they do not want that; they do not want to be tied to that and would like only a year. Is the landlord obliged to offer them renewals for three years, even if the person wants it for only a year?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the proposal is that the landlord should be required to offer it, but that does not in any sense preclude the tenant and the landlord deciding that they want a different tenure.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
All the agreements for letting residential properties in this country are extremely complicated. In Australia, there is just one in New South Wales. I do not know about other states because there is not a federal law. In New South Wales, you just go into the local paper shop and pay $7.50. That is your letting agreement and everyone—big and small, rich and poor—abides by those. There is about an inch and a half in which you could type quite a lot of special agreed clauses but the rest of the format is a basic thing. It is so simple.
The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that this amendment is rather overbalanced against the landlord is relevant and important. Are you going to create a different type of tenancy from the assured shorthold? What will you do in cases where the landlord dies and his family is obliged to pay all death duties in advance of getting probate? What will happen under those circumstances? If you must sell the property with a sitting tenant, of course you will not get anything like the full value. Will the Exchequer allow for that and value the property down accordingly, or will it be done on the open-market value of the vacant property? What would be the special provision where the tenant was not paying the rent and that had built up? Would that all be covered by a new type of tenancy agreement? There are so many complexities that we need to look at here, so this is rather badly balanced.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, described people as being at the whim of bad landlords. I am sure that anyone who has a bad landlord is pretty unfortunate but there are so many honest, reliable landlords and, likewise, many good tenants who are happy. I know many people who have rented for years and are still in the same property after well over a decade, as was mentioned. There is a difference between that and the fact that the landlord is obliged to offer three years while the tenant can go any time at two months’ notice. That seems a bit extreme, one way or the other.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I can deal with the noble Baroness’s comment on what happens in the event that the landlord dies. This is an amendment moved by my colleague on the Front Bench, and if there is a difficulty with it there is no reason at all why the Government cannot come back with an amendment to deal with the thrust of the case laid in the amendments by my Front Bench but which includes a provision for those circumstances. That is what we are here to do: to legislate. These amendments have been proposed but Ministers could take them away and say, “Yes, there is a point here but if we build in a system of exemptions then these particular problems will not arise”.
I can also deal with the question of tenants in arrears, which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to. As I understand it, under Clause 55—in Part 3, which is headed “Recovering abandoned premises”—the Government’s position is actually to simplify the whole process of dealing with what happens where,
“the unpaid rent condition is met”.
That would cover where people are in arrears and where mortgages are being paid, as I presume that under that provision the landlord would then be entitled to secure possession of his property. That deals with one of the main objections in the contribution of the noble Earl, to which I listened carefully.
Finally, the noble Earl referred to people working at Gatwick Airport who did not necessarily need longer-term tenancies. The amendment says that,
“it is an implied term of such a tenancy that the tenant may terminate the tenancy by giving two months’ written notice to the landlord”.
The tenant is not locked into the agreement at all. The tenant can pull out of the agreement at a moment’s notice simply by saying, “I gave two months’ notice to the landlord”. What we are doing here is protecting tenants by not locking them in, in the sense that they can pull out. We are protecting landlords—or the Government are protecting them—under the provisions of Clause 55 in terms of arrears. In terms of landlords dying, as I said, that could be dealt with by further consideration by the Government.
However, what we are doing more than anything else is giving people who take on tenancies a sense of security as to where they live. From what I hear from tales brought to me by my sons’ friends, who have had different tenancies in London over a period of years, many tenants in London do not know where they are going to be. They do not know whether the landlord will want the property back at the end of 12 months. People are entitled to know that the weight is moving at least a little more in favour of the tenants to give them more rights. We are not granting people long-term security of tenure and indefinite tenancies. We are simply extending it from one to three years to give more balance to the way that tenancies operate in the United Kingdom.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I want to put this problem in a slightly wider context. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the present system of short tenancies was bad for tenants, bad for landlords and bad for housing. It is also bad for the local community. There are areas in the north of England of cheap, mainly terraced, housing and former council estates. The houses are cheap—as I will explain later—the rents are cheap, and keeping them in a decent condition is a constant struggle for owners, for the council and for people living in them. The result of the system is that there is a high churn—that is the technical word—of tenants. Many people live in a house for only a short period. That is clearly linked to the system of tenancies.
More than 10 years ago, I was chair of the governors of the local primary school. One problem the school had was the children who were living in that kind of property. It is a traditional area of working class owner -occupation. Some 50 or 100 years ago, people bought the houses from the mills that they worked for. When I first knew the area, owner-occupation was 80% or more, but private landlords have moved in very significantly and taken over many of the properties: one-third or more in the period I am talking about. Two-thirds of the children in the school spent most of their primary education there. In that respect, it was a very stable school: children went into the nursery or infants at the age of three or four and left at 11 when they went to secondary school. However, one-third of the children turned over every year. Every year, one-third of the children in each class were new and did not stay long enough to settle, to get a proper education and have the stability of being in the same school for some time.
That is just one example. When I first knew it 40 years ago, this was a pretty stable working class community of extended families. People who bought houses there as young couples had their parents living in the next street and their grandparents round the corner or in the sheltered housing just down the road. That has been broken down. There are lots of reasons for that, but the single most important one is the growth of private sector housing at the bottom end of the market. There are some good landlords. In that area, the best ones are those who live in the street and own one or two other properties in it. Other very good landlords are those who were left a house when their parents died, look after it well and live in the same town. However, there are absentee landlords who operate through housing agents. I have had people ringing up from Bognor Regis demanding to know why, as their councillor, I was not doing something about the rotten tenants in their house who had just done a moonlight flit and taken all the copper. I had to explain that I was not their councillor but that I was concerned about the house. But I also had to ask why they put those tenants in. I said, “Well, you know what the street is like. It is like that. We are desperately trying to hang on to the good residents there, but you know what it is like”. They said, “No, we have never been there, why should we?”. It is that kind of landlord in the private rented sector which is a disaster. That is why I would tend to support this amendment, which is just one of the things that might be done.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, Amendment 29, if enacted, would introduce a minimum of three-year tenancies in the private rented sector in England and would mean that landlords would not be able to rely on the notice-only or no-fault ground for possession—known as Section 21—within the first three years of a tenancy. Tenants would be able to end the tenancy by giving, as the noble Lord said, two months’ notice at any time.
Let me make it clear that this Government are committed to building a bigger and better private rented sector which provides security and stability for tenants and flexibility for landlords. We have taken action to support the supply and quality of private rented accommodation by resisting unnecessary and unhelpful regulation while cracking down on the worst practices of some rogue landlords.
Our model tenancy agreement, introduced in September 2014, promotes longer tenancies for those landlords and tenants who want to sign up to them, but there is no one-size-fits-all approach to tenancy lengths, as noble Lords have said. Many landlords are looking to rent out a property for the longer term, but there will be some for whom letting a property is a short-term plan and who will need the property back at some point, perhaps for their own family to live in, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said. So, the system does need flexibility.
Although I understand the spirit in which this amendment is tabled, the amendment would be counterproductive. It would overburden the market with restrictive red tape, stifling investment and the supply of rented housing at a time when we most need to encourage it. This would not help landlords or, indeed, tenants.
Let me explain. Before assured shorthold tenancies were introduced in the Housing Act 1988, the private rental market was in decline. Lifetime tenancies and regulated rents meant that being a landlord was simply not commercially viable for many property owners. But since 1988, the private rented sector has grown steadily—growing from just over 9% of the market in 1988 to 19% today. Landlords, and in most cases tenants, welcome the flexibility of the current assured shorthold tenancy regime, which does not lock either party into long-term commitments and promotes mobility.
We must be mindful that recent figures show that tenancy lengths are on average three and a half years. However, without the certainty that landlords can seek repossession when required, many would be reluctant to let their properties.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
If the landlord were reluctant to let the property, what would then happen? It would go on the market for sale, making it more available to young owner-occupiers, or would-be owner-occupiers. Is that a bad thing given the Government’s philosophy?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It may not go on the market. It may, as I and other noble Lords have said, be for the use of the landlord who owns the property. There are a variety of reasons why a landlord should wish to repossess a property.
The noble Baroness’s question on retaliatory eviction is very valid. She will remember that the intention of the Deregulation Act 2015 was to provide tenants with protection from such eviction. Where a tenant has raised a legitimate and verified complaint with the local authority they cannot be evicted using the no-fault Section 21 procedure for six months.
The noble Baroness also talked about buy-to-let mortgages. Mortgage lenders have told us that following the introduction of our model tenancy agreement, with appropriate break clauses, there is no longer any impediment to permitting longer tenancies for their landlord customers. The Nationwide Building Society permits tenancies of up to three years and Barclays for up to two years. Lloyds, the biggest player in the buy-to-let market, is in full agreement in offering three-year tenancies and plans to implement the policy by the summer of 2016. The Housing Minister wrote to the Council of Mortgage Lenders in January, urging it to encourage those lenders who have not changed their policies to do so, and further discussions will be held.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this short debate. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that I have great respect for him and his knowledge of this sector but there are landlords in the private rented sector who want a longer period to rent to tenants. My amendment seeks to address that issue by retaining the flexibility that both the landlord and the tenant want. It is only a probing amendment but it highlights an issue for some tenants and landlords; namely, allowing longer assured shorthold tenancies where these are wanted. There are, of course, many excellent private landlords, including, I am sure, all the noble Lords who are landlords. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“(e) the local housing authority responds to a request by the landlord confirming that they suspect the property to be abandoned.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, at Second Reading I and many other noble Lords expressed reservations about the proposals on abandonment. Creating a fast-track process to reclaim possession of a property that has been abandoned has a number of risks. Taking the courts out of the process leaves the tenant in a potentially very difficult position. What is also odd about this provision is that we have spent the first day and the first part of this second day in Committee talking about rogue landlords and seeking to protect tenants from their unfair and often illegal practices. But this part of the Bill could be seen as a rogue’s charter.
It creates a court-free process to get rid of your tenant if you do not like them so that you can get other people in who may pay a few more quid in rent. In 12 weeks the landlord can get possession of their property, after eight weeks of rent arrears and if the tenant has failed to respond to three notices. There do not appear to be any significant problems regarding properties being abandoned. Can the Minister point to the evidence for these proposals being necessary?
Landlords already have powerful rights to regain possession of their property. They can evict tenants through the courts using Section 8 or Section 21 notices and can also use implied surrender in cases of abandonment. Under implied surrender, a landlord may take instant possession of a property without court approval if the action of the tenant clearly implies that they have surrendered the tenancy. We should be clear that genuine cases of abandonment are rare and this is a simple protection for tenants.
Can the noble Baroness also set out how vulnerable tenants will be protected from rogue landlords seeking to make use of these clauses? People can be called away or their circumstances might change. It could take more than eight weeks to get their benefits or other matters sorted out. Vulnerable people in particular may not respond to letters or emails that are sent to them. So although the landlord is not getting any response, it does not mean that the property has been abandoned. The provision allowing tenants to challenge abandonment at the county court after they have been evicted is very weak indeed. Who is going to do that with their possessions on the pavement? Getting a roof over your head will be your overriding concern.
The whole of Clause 55 should go, as tenants seem to have very little protection under it. If the Government are not going to do that, Amendment 34, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, would add an additional subsection (e) to the clause, which would require the local authority to respond to a request from the landlord, confirming that it believes the property is abandoned and that the landlord can serve notice on the tenant. This should cause the Government no concern whatever. It would enable the landlord to recover their property if it has been abandoned —in addition to the powers and ways that they have at present, which I have outlined already—but would add a small but significant protection for the tenant.
Amendments 35 and 36, which both come under Clause 57, concern warning notices. Amendment 35 would give the person occupying the property an additional four weeks to respond to the warning notice, while Amendment 36 increases the maximum period within which the second warning notice can be given from four to eight weeks. The purpose of these amendments is to increase the time available to resolve these matters without the abandonment procedures being invoked and for the tenants to be able to confirm they have not abandoned the property. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, this is a particularly important amendment, as I read it. I am sorry that I slightly misinterpreted the wording in the legislation on this whole question of abandonment. It seems to me that this provision as it stands is wide open to abuse. Clause 58 has a reinstatement principle, which I suppose is a sort of appeal, but many landlords will believe that this is an open door for them to bring a tenancy to an end by simply asserting the fact that they believe the property to be abandoned.
I cannot see how it is possible to reject the amendment that has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, which says that the “local housing authority” has to respond,
“to a request by the landlord confirming that they suspect the property to be abandoned”.
In other words, the local authority has to give the seal of approval before the landlord can bring the tenancy to an end.
I hope that the Minister will not simply follow what is in her brief, assuming it says, “Reject”, but will perhaps put this back to people in her department. It is a perfectly sensible and reasonable amendment. It would provide a checking arrangement to make sure that landlords do not abuse their position and I hope that it will be supported by the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I also support my noble friend’s amendment. I understand from briefings from Crisis and other organisations that this is quite a small problem. There are approximately 1.4 million landlords and I think the Government believe that only about 1,750 tenancies are abandoned every year, which is less than 0.5% of private rented households. However, the problem is that there does not seem to be enough security or protection for tenants against greedy or rogue landlords speeding up the process—whether someone is on holiday, is in hospital or has other problems with the landlord and has gone to stay with friends while work that should be done is not being done. There seems to be no way for the local authority—unless the Minister can assure me otherwise—to guarantee that the property has been properly abandoned, rather than it being a case of the rogue landlord using this as a short cut to regain possession. What is needed is an authoritative checking device—for which the local authority, the environmental health officer, the housing officer, or whoever, is best placed—to ensure that the keys have been handed in, the furniture has been removed, the tenant has moved away and the children are no longer there. That is the sort of evidence we want, not the landlord’s hope that because the tenant has not been seen for eight weeks—which might be because they are in hospital, or have gone back to a family home elsewhere in the continent for the summer—they can gain speedy possession that is not legitimate.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
May I ask for some clarification? When I sat as a magistrate, we had a case of a tenant whose landlord stopped taking the rent; it was never collected. After some years he was able to come to the court and get the right to buy the property, because, technically, it was abandoned. At the time this seemed to me quite a complex procedure and I wonder where it fits in—whether the tenant is disadvantaged by this amendment, or the owner of the property. I am not sure what the amendment means.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
There should, of course, be no problem over landlords repossessing genuinely abandoned property. As I was saying, Crisis estimates that there are 1,750 such cases every year. We want a procedure to ensure that the property has genuinely been abandoned, rather than the process being exploited by rogue landlords to cut corners to regain possession when they should not.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as leader of a local authority. I have not so far intervened in this Committee and I apologise for the fact that, as we are setting a budget this evening, I will have to abandon the Committee almost as soon as I have arrived.
One of the features of that budget is that we are not going to be setting any new burdens or tasks for the local authority, because we all know the relevant circumstances. I have sympathy for some of the concerns expressed in Committee, and I acknowledge that at present this appears to be a relatively small problem, numerically, although some of the undertone of the conversation suggests that it might be abused and that there will be a lot more of it if this power goes on to the statute book. Local authorities are not investigative bodies; we are not private detectives. I will think about what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has put forward but it slightly worries me that if the local authority is put in the position of being the body certifying, by definition, that people cannot be found, it potentially places, even in a limited number of cases, quite a strain and responsibility on that authority. Later in this part, the authority would become a party to any legal proceedings, because it would be challenged on whether it had given a proper certification. While I understand, therefore, where the noble Lord, and others who have spoken, are coming from, I would want to understand much more clearly what burdens, requirements and responsibilities on local authorities it might lead to if this were to go on the statute book.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I can tell noble Lords what it would lead to. In the event that the rogue landlord manages to get the tenant out for these spurious reasons, the local authority will be picking up the bill, and may end up having to house the people concerned. So it is better at least to have a checking mechanism in place, to ensure that the local authority is not placed in that very difficult position.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Doing some quick mental arithmetic, I suspect that we are talking about four to five instances per housing authority per year; compared to the responsibilities of local authorities for fitness standards, inspection of houses in multiple occupation, electrical safety and the like, this is trivial. As an ex-local authority person myself, I absolutely understand why the noble Lord is concerned, but we are dealing with a very small number, and probably the same landlords who are already well-known to local authority housing officers or environmental health officers as being too often on the wrong side of the law.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am not a leader of a local authority, but I am a member of one, so I understand the noble Lord’s point. I am not a fan of the Bill, but this part has some very good things in it on strengthening protection for private tenants. By this one provision, we are opening the back door for the rogues. Good landlords would not get involved in this, but there are always the few people who see a quick way to pull a stroke, and we seem to be opening the back door for them as we shut all the other doors. That is odd. The amendment may not be right—it is only a probing amendment—but it highlights a real issue.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and contributions to the debate. As the noble Baroness said, the provisions are hugely important to a small number of landlords whose properties are abandoned by tenants who have stopped paying rent. We estimate that 1,750 properties in the private rented sector are abandoned a year at a cost of about £5 million to recover them. The Government want to ensure that the proper processes are in place before an abandoned property can be recovered.
Amendment 34 would require local authorities to certify for landlords in their area when a property has been abandoned. We are not convinced, and would echo the words of my noble friend Lord True, that local authorities, which may not have the resources, are necessarily in a better position to pass judgment on the matter. Such a requirement may also cause delays and hinder hard-working landlords and families from renting out empty accommodation. Amendments 35 and 36 would ensure that the minimum warning period before a landlord can recover an abandoned property was 12 weeks, and that a second warning notice was served at least four weeks and no more than eight weeks after service of the first.
I reassure noble Lords that this is absolutely not about opening a back door to landlords. It is about putting in place a procedure for dealing with abandoned properties that would allow a reputable landlord to recover a property that has been abandoned without the need to obtain a court order. The process includes a number of safeguards to ensure that a landlord can use it only where a tenant has genuinely abandoned a property. As my noble friend Lady Williams said, this is not about rent arrears.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Who will check that the landlord is not acting like a rogue and that the property is actually abandoned?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I will go through the process, which contains checks and balances which will ensure that a tenant has genuinely abandoned the property.
The landlord can recover a property only where warning notices have been served on the tenant, with a copy of the first and second warning notice sent care of any guarantor. The first warning notice could not in practice be served unless there were at least four consecutive weeks’ rent unpaid. The second warning notice can be served only when at least eight consecutive weeks’ rent is unpaid. It must be given at least two weeks and no more than four weeks after the first warning notice. Each warning notice must state that the landlord believes the premises to have been abandoned, that the tenant or named occupier must respond in writing—which could be by email—before a specified date, which must be at least eight weeks after the first warning notice is given, if the premises have not been abandoned, and that the landlord proposes to bring the tenancy to an end if neither the tenant nor a named occupier responds in writing before that date.
Following service of the second warning notice, where the tenant has failed to respond, the landlord must then put a third and final notice on the door of the property at least five days before the end of the warning period. That notice must state that unless the tenant or the named occupier responds in writing within five days—as I said, that could include email—the landlord will bring the tenancy to an end and repossess the property. The Secretary of State will prescribe the content of the final warning notice. This requirement was added in Committee in the other place to add a further safeguard to the process. Finally, if a tenancy has been brought to an end using the abandonment procedure, where a tenant had a good reason for failing to respond to the warning notices, they may apply to the county court for an order reinstating the tenancy.
I hope from this explanation that it is clear that landlords will continue to have to go through a lengthy and detailed process before they can regard a property as being abandoned. In addition to a requirement that at least eight consecutive weeks’ rent remains unpaid, they must serve a series of warning notices on a tenant and, when applicable, any other named occupiers. We believe that it would be an unnecessary burden on local authorities to impose an additional requirement that a local housing authority must also confirm that a property has in its view been abandoned. It may be difficult to determine whether this is the case or not, and requiring it to do so could place it in a difficult position. It would also be likely to introduce further substantial delay into the process of recovering an abandoned property, depriving the landlord of income and a family of the chance to occupy a property sitting empty.
It is already effectively the case that in the Bill the minimum period before a landlord can recover an abandoned property would be 12 weeks, as I have outlined. The clauses are carefully drafted but complex and, subject to Royal Assent, the department will issue guidance to landlords to help them to understand the new process. Amendments 35 and 36 would also replace the current provision in Clause 57, which specifies that a second warning notice must be served at least two weeks and no more than four weeks after service of the first warning notice. We have sought to strike the right balance between ensuring that tenants are given adequate notice, that the landlord believes that the property may have been abandoned, and to respond if they have not, in fact, abandoned the property, while also ensuring that landlords do not have to wait an unreasonable amount of time before being able to recover the property. Requiring that the second warning notice is served at least four weeks and no more than eight weeks after service of the first warning notice would add further delay and deprive the landlord of an income and another family of the chance to occupy the property when it is sitting empty.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
This is my first foray into this Bill, and I draw attention to my interests in the register. Clause 57(6) says:
“The first warning notice may be given even if the unpaid rent condition is not yet met”.
On what basis can the landlord assume that the unpaid rent condition is eventually going to be met?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The first warning notice would not in practice be able to be served unless four consecutive weeks’ rent is unpaid, and the second warning notice may be served only when at least eight consecutive weeks is unpaid. So there are specific timescales for which there is unpaid rent. I am not sure whether that fully answers the question; if it does not, perhaps I can come back to noble Lords.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I would be grateful if the Minister could do so because, on the face of it, the provision seems odd. The unpaid rent condition has to be met for the abandonment provisions to proceed. Obviously, the concern is that warning notices may come thick and fast without the chance of the tenant to have due consideration. The basis on which that first warning notice can be given if the unpaid rent condition is not met is somewhat bemusing. Could the Minister, if she cannot say more today, write to us on that?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Yes, I am happy to clarify. I have talked about a lot of notices and warnings; perhaps it would be better to put it in writing so that it is clear.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Under the provisions for universal credit—it is something that I regret very much, although it is a structure that I very much support—you are not allowed as a social landlord to start alternative payment arrangements in which there is direct payment to the landlord until there is at least six weeks’ non-payment of rent. It looks to me as though a private landlord can start possession behaviour faster than a social landlord can seek direct payment of rent to the landlord.
Lord True
My Lords, I do not want to intervene on the Minister, but Clause 56(1)(a) states:
“The unpaid rent condition is met if … at least eight consecutive weeks’ rent is unpaid”.
I follow what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said. Clause 57(6) states—perhaps officials could note this—that the,
“first warning notice may be given even if the unpaid rent condition is not yet met”,
In construing the clause, the landlord could think, “Five or six weeks have gone by and I have not had any rent, so I am going to send out a warning notice without waiting for the eight weeks”. That is how I would read the Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The Minister explained the process for getting possession of a property believed to have been abandoned but she did not mention vulnerable tenants. Will there be any special provision for vulnerable people? I am worried that those people will not be opening their mail or looking at their emails or engaging in things and all of a sudden they will find themselves on the street.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I set out the overall process but of course we will have to be mindful of people being able to access it. That is why we have put so many checks within the process to ensure that there is an opportunity for the tenant or someone else named as an occupier to respond. The final thing will be a public notice on the property to say what the situation is. We believe that this process as a whole will ensure that tenants are not disadvantaged and, of course, vulnerable tenants are on our mind.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The Minister also said that when the tenant of the property believed to have been abandoned has been evicted, they can go to the county court. Will legal aid be available for the county court action?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I will have to get back to the noble Lord. I am afraid I do not have that information.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
That would be very helpful. In this short debate we have highlighted a few issues with this section of the Bill so can I suggest that it might be welcome if a few noble Lords got together with the Minister to discuss some of them? There are issues which are not clear and could cause problems. The last thing we want is to get something on the statute book that causes everybody confusion.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I have one further question. If the rent condition is initially not met but then there is a payment which starts the process again, where does that leave the warning notices that have been issued? Will they remain in place for a possible second bout of the application of these provisions?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am happy to agree to meet with noble Lords interested in this area so perhaps they could list all their questions and we will try to respond to them when we meet in due course.
Lord Beecham
I declare two interests: one is my local government interest which is in the register. In that context I want to reflect briefly on the burdens that might be imposed on local authorities in terms of enforcement and point out that there is such a thing as the new burdens doctrine. Admittedly it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance by the present Administration—the noble Lord, Lord True, is nodding his wry agreement with that—but technically speaking, if a new burden is imposed and incurs costs then the Government are expected to meet that cost. We are presumably not talking about large sums of money nationally in any event, as I assume that there will not be a huge number of cases, unless the Bill incentivises such procedures.
I also declare a family interest inasmuch as my daughter practises at the Bar, particularly in the field of housing law, both as counsel and as a part-time deputy district judge. My impression is that legal aid would not be available. At the moment it is confined to cases of eviction. I assume that this case would not fall within the definition of eviction. It is effectively the tenant failing to respond to the procedure that is set out here. If I am wrong about that and if legal aid is applicable, it would be as well to have that on the record. If it is not, then I hope that the Minister will not only reply to that effect but consider very carefully and quickly whether legal aid should be extended to cases of this sort, particularly because, as my noble friend has indicated, there may well be vulnerable people who will need help in presenting any kind of case for resuming possession of a property which appeared to be abandoned.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I believe that the noble Lord is correct about legal aid, but I hope he will permit me to go back and confirm that. In response to the question on what happens when some payment of rent is made, the process starts from scratch and all notices will need to be resent. But as I said, I am very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss some of the detail further.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Before we finish on this amendment, does the Minister understand that very often we are talking about very vulnerable people who simply will not understand this process? We can almost foresee the circumstances in which this is going to go wrong. I wonder whether the Minister will go away and consider the position and how this will affect the vulnerable. It is a very important issue.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, already social housing landlords—housing associations and so on—are beginning to deal with universal credit tenants. I am not confident of my figures, but I understand that something like 60% of them are in arrears and seeking alternative payment arrangements. Social landlords —local authorities or housing associations—are scrupulous in trying to ensure that vulnerable tenants who are finding it difficult to manage their money or whatever are not at risk of losing their home.
I fear that I have no such faith in the interest of private landlords. I am sure that many of them would seek to keep a vulnerable tenant afloat—but they are running a business, they cannot afford not to have rent payments and, as a result, given the changes that are now happening with universal credit for the private sector and the social sector, such tenants, vulnerable tenants in particular, will be more exposed to bad behaviour by landlords seeking a shortcut to rid themselves of an uncomfortable tenant.
Lord True
I do not dissent from what the noble Baroness said, nor from what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said—but, as I read this part of the Bill, it is also designed to address the situation where a bad tenant who does not want to pay their rent disappears and does not want to be found. That is what lies behind my concern about local authorities. If the local authority has to certify that this person has gone—is deliberately not wanting to be found and not answering letters and has actually abandoned the property —it will want to be extremely cautious, particularly if there is a court case potentially pending, or will require very clear regulatory protection before it issues such a certification. So there is a risk if it means that the bad tenant, who is the other side of the question, will not be pursued. These matters clearly need to be discussed and my noble friend on the Front Bench has offered such discussions.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet noble Lords from across the House. There are clearly issues here that need addressing. This is about how vulnerable tenants are treated. Another issue is whether they are English speaking; I have just thought of that. There is a question about how people are treated in court when they have no legal aid. Before this gets on the statute book, we need to take a proper, vigorous look at it. If need be, we can seek amendments later on in the process. At this stage, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, in the most recent discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, suggested that perhaps this section should go. Like his fairy godmother, here I am with that moment. What I am proposing applies to all the clauses relevant to abandonment, and it is that they should go at this point in this discussion.
My reasons are as follows. This is a new and complex change in the law for which there is no need. The impact is on a small percentage of tenancies, so why introduce new legislation? Clauses 8 and 21 already cover this area. This change may be exploited by unscrupulous landlords with vulnerable tenants, especially if it is taken out of the county court process and without any kind of oversight. This goes against the flow of a really good piece of the Bill on rogue landlords. Above all, there is a danger that it will make people homeless.
The section on abandonment of property appears to us to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The number of tenancies where abandonment is an issue that would fall within the remit of this legislation is estimated, not by Crisis or Shelter but by the Government’s own analysis, to be 1,750 each year out of a total of 4.4 million tenancies. That is a tiny amount, which makes me question why we should introduce a new and deeply complex layer of additional process and legislation.
This therefore appears to be for landlords who are worried that they cannot quickly reclaim a property where it has been abandoned. Their concern seems to centre on the fixed-term period for a tenancy, which is most commonly six months—a period in which they cannot use a Section 21 notice. If, on the other hand, a property was abandoned outside the fixed-term period, an uncontested Section 21 notice would mean that possession could take place in around three months, which is about the same amount of time as is proposed in the Bill. So it seems that the issue is about getting possession in the fixed-term period.
In the fixed term, the issue that perhaps landlords have is that Section 8, a fault eviction, takes—in the view of some landlords—too long. However, as I have already said, there are very few cases of abandonment and not all of these will be in the fixed term; by the Government’s own estimate the number of properties that are abandoned within the fixed term is likely to be very few. If the Government are concerned that their own eviction processes—namely, Sections 8 and 21—are not working, should there not be a complete review of that rather than the addition of this complex layer?
This proposal, which sets a dangerous precedent, takes this outside the court’s oversight in any way, so who oversees this? There are already powers for a landlord to take possession when they are convinced that the property is abandoned. For instance, if someone’s possessions have been moved out and they have left the keys, the landlord can immediately and legally reclaim the property under something called “implied surrender”. But the tenant’s actions must clearly indicate that they have abandoned the property. So I would like to hear from the Minister why the current system of implied surrender is not being used in these very rare cases.
Shelter and other organisations deal with vulnerable tenants—and we need to focus on vulnerable tenants with regard to this, since the number of tenancies is so small. First, it opens up the possibility of unintentional evictions, where someone is taken ill or suddenly called away to care for a relative and is unable to respond to notices. If that person pays their rent in cash or their housing payment benefit payment is disrupted, they could easily get into arrears while they are away and could be mistakenly assumed to have abandoned their property.
Secondly, an unscrupulous landlord could use this process to evict a tenant they did not want outside the processes of the court or any kind of oversight. As discussed just now, we are very concerned about Clause 57(6), which states:
“The first warning notice may be given even if the unpaid rent condition is not yet met”.
In fact, by our calculations it means that the process could take as little as nine weeks, not 12 weeks. So we worry that notice could start to proceed at a much faster pace. Is there any concern here at all that landlords can use this, frankly, to jump the gun?
We recognise, as a result of objections in the Commons, that a new third warning has been added, which merely specifies that it would be fixed not to the door, as I read it in the Bill—I ask the Minister to correct me if I have got that wrong—but,
“to some conspicuous part of the premises”,
which will be specified in regulations at a later date. Let us hope that it will not be a yellow Post-it note on a lamp-post—but how do we know that it will not be? There is no specification at the moment, but how would we know? Above all, who has oversight to prove that that notice was put there, since this is out of the courts? So will the Minister explain how that will be overseen? Who will be the judge of whether the landlord, claiming to have fixed that conspicuous notice, has indeed fixed it?
The main concern is that unscrupulous landlords would be allowed to use the abandonment procedure as a pretence to carry out illegal evictions. Other noble Lords who are familiar with this area are already familiar with some of the things that landlords can do. Let us remind ourselves of some of the illegal things that landlords attempt to do, even under a Section 21 notice. I do not refer to all landlords. There are a lot of very responsible landlords. But some attempt to do things like this.
I will give you a case study with which Shelter provided me. Emma was served with a Section 21 notice. The notice was invalid because it gave only one month’s notice. She informed the landlord of the invalid notice. Since then she has experienced harassment from the landlord and his colleagues. The landlord threatened to jump over her fence, force entry, kick the door down and sublet the rooms in her house, even though she had exclusive occupation of the home—all in an attempt to force her to leave before she has to legally. Her windows have been broken and her phone line has been cut from outside. This is the kind of thing that, obviously, will be done by rogue landlords. There are a lot of good things in the legislation, but abandonment opens up a possibility of abuse by people such as this.
The vast majority of landlords, as I have said, are decent and responsible, but there are some who will try to apply this bit of the law to intimidate and evict tenants. By taking evictions outside the court and through unclear legislation, it is not difficult to imagine that an unscrupulous landlord will lie about sending the notices and tenants will become homeless.
Citizens Advice, which has great expertise in dealing with these kinds of vulnerable tenants, is also deeply concerned about this and about the likely costs and implications for local authorities. In contrast to the rest of this Bill, the section on rogue landlords is supported across the parties. It seems a shame to introduce this new, complex and unnecessary addition to the Bill. It has all the hallmarks of something that, frankly, should be submitted to the Red Tape Challenge rather than agreed by this House. The threat remains that it will be used by landlords who are unscrupulous. I asked for reassurances on this issue at Second Reading and I am still seeking them at this stage.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I have concerns about this section of the Bill. I am very much taken with the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that this section needs a fundamental rethink and that, in trying to amend it, we risk simply ameliorating what is not a terribly well thought-through part of the Bill. The balance of power between landlords and tenants now is so strongly in favour of the landlord that we should think very carefully about adding a further power to landlords in relation to this issue, or indeed any issue. We should be very persuaded that there is a big enough problem to solve. We have heard quite clearly from many noble Lords that there is not a sufficient issue to be solved—that, in comparison to the scale of the private rented sector, it is a very small issue. I think we risk putting in quite a bad piece of legislation, seeking to tweak it along the way to make it slightly better. We are actually putting in place something that we do not need and that is not likely to be helpful in tackling the issues we are talking about.
I want to make a point on which I declare my interest as president of the Local Government Association. We talked earlier about the burdens on local authorities from the previous amendments. Let me tell you the burden that will come from inappropriate evictions. I think it will be considerably greater in cost, leaving aside the damage to individuals, so it is right to think again about whether these provisions are needed at all.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken in Committee today, so I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register of interests. I support my noble friend Lady Grender, who set out so eloquently our opposition to Clauses 55 to 61. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that this is badly thought-out and not needed.
As has been said, these clauses are designed to solve a problem for which there is already legislation. The Government appear extremely keen to move residents out of housing association and local authority housing into the private sector. This is all well and good if the supply and standard of accommodation on offer is adequate and meets the Government’s standards for what is required. However, as I am sure the Government will readily admit, much of this accommodation is in a very poor state of repair, sometimes not secure against the elements and, in extreme cases, not fit for human habitation.
As has already been said, there is a balance to be struck between ensuring that landlords can run their properties as a viable business and the interests of tenants looking for a secure and comfortable home. In 2015, 115,000 people approached Citizens Advice with problems in private rented homes, 2,053 of which were about illegal evictions by landlords in the private rented sector. This represented an increase in inquiries on this specific issue of 32% compared with 2014. This is part of a general upward trend over more than a year. During 2013-14, 111,960 households in England applied to their councils for homelessness assistance—a rise of 26% on 2009-10. On 30 September, 68,560 households were living in temporary accommodation—13% higher than on the same day in 2014, thus producing considerable pressure on local authority homelessness budgets, as we have already heard, with residents often put in temporary accommodation.
The abandonment proposals in the Bill lower the level of proof that landlords will have to meet to claim that their property has been abandoned. The proposal would also legitimise an illegal practice: evicting a tenant without going through a formal court procedure, even when the tenant has not engaged in any conduct that might clearly show that he has abandoned the property. This suggests that, if introduced, it would lead to higher eviction rates and a similar rise in the number of homelessness applications to local authorities, resulting in higher administrative and temporary accommodation costs. Will the Minister say whether this is the Government’s intention and what action they are prepared to take to prevent this sorry state of affairs coming to pass?
At a time when the number of households with dependent children living in the private rented sector is increasing, the added financial impact on council budgets is likely to be significant, as it is these households who will have a priority need for housing by the local authority if made homeless. Using the DCLG’s findings, Citizens Advice estimates the increased social costs to the public sector of each homelessness application at between £24,000 and £30,000 per year, producing an average of £27,000 per year per family or individual. This is not a good use of taxpayers’ money. I cannot believe that this is the Government’s intention. I look forward to their response.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for proposing that this whole part should be abandoned. I support that suggestion. I will not go through the points I made in the previous debate, but I may have a few points when the Minister responds. The removal of the oversight of the courts, as referred to by the noble Baroness, is of particular concern, and the provision that the third warning notice should be fixed in a “conspicuous” place is very weak and offers very little protection to the vulnerable tenant. The Government have not made the case for these clauses, or that these changes are needed or necessary. The Government need to think again over the procedure and the risks involved, as other noble Lords said in the debate.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I agree with those who say that these provisions should be recast. I want to pick up on the third warning needing to be,
“given by fixing it to some conspicuous part of the premises to which the tenancy relates”.
Conspicuous to whom? Is it the tenant, the whole world, the community that passes by the front door? It seems to me that giving notice to somebody by nailing something to their front door is almost medieval. You can imagine that somebody will put the notice up, the mobile phone will come out and a photograph will be taken but half an hour later it could be ripped off and be nowhere in view—certainly nowhere in view of the tenant. It seems an incredibly archaic approach. I think the whole thing should be recast but that particular provision jars immensely.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on Part 3 of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said that numbers may be small, but these provisions are nevertheless important to good and reputable landlords whose properties are abandoned by tenants who have stopped paying rent. As we have tried to make clear, we want to find a balance between protecting good landlords and good tenants. Presently, when abandonment happens a landlord can go in and change the locks. However, that involves taking a huge risk, since if the tenant has not abandoned the property the landlord could be liable to prosecution for unlawful eviction and be subject to claims for damages in the civil courts. As a result, many landlords do not take the risk and instead take possession proceedings in the county court.
However, before they are able to commence court action they must bring the tenancy to an end by serving a Section 21 notice giving the tenant two months’ notice, and when they have made the application it can be two or three further months before they get a court order enabling them to repossess the property. In the mean time they receive no rental income for a property which is standing empty, and often will still need to meet their mortgage payments. The landlord will also incur costs in taking court proceedings. As I have said, abandonment may not be a widespread problem but it is estimated that it costs landlords around £5 million a year in legal fees, missed rent and time.
When a person surrenders a property they contact their landlord and hand in their keys, but in this instance we are talking about when a person abandons a property and disappears and stops paying rent. It is a different situation. That is why we think the provisions in Part 3 provide for a simpler and cheaper method for recovering property where the former tenant has permanently left owing arrears of rent that have continued to accrue since the first warning notice was given.
I also make clear that any landlord who abuses this process by not giving tenants proper warning and takes repossession of the property knowing that it has not been abandoned will be liable to be prosecuted for unlawful eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. As we have also tried to make clear, this is not intended as a route to remove a tenant in arrears. This is about abandoned properties. A tenant will also be able to bring a claim for damages through the civil courts where the landlord has not followed the procedure as set out in legislation. The provisions are not a charter for landlords—
Baroness Grender
Have the Government made an estimate of the cost to a tenant? Since there is a cost of £5 million to the landlords—which is the Government’s estimate—what is the cost to tenants for pursuing this through the courts?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, we have heard the strength of feeling in the House on this issue and have agreed that we will meet and have a further opportunity to discuss issues. I will attempt also to ensure we have information on hand in that meeting. I reaffirm that these provisions are not a charter for landlords to carry out a do-it-yourself eviction. That is and will remain unlawful. On the basis of the strength of feeling in the House, we welcome the opportunity to discuss further details with noble Lords. On that basis, I ask that these clauses stand part of the Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Can the Minister tell us a little about where the pressure for these changes is coming from? We hear that there is not a big issue and not a problem here. The Government are going to meet us and seem quite determined about this. What is behind all this? Where has it all come from?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have explained, the rationale behind this is to attempt to provide balance and fairness for both tenants and landlords.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister help me on one other point, please? On the reference to rent not being paid, or rent being unpaid, what happens if a tenant, in struggling to pay the rent, pays an amount on account? Does that count as the rent being unpaid for a week, or a month? How is that dealt with? The Minister has used the expression that someone has effectively given up on paying the rent. There could be many instances where people are struggling to pay the rent, doing the best that they can, and making partial payments. If that is what they do, would that preclude the operation of these provisions?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Obviously, there will be a dialogue between tenant and landlord, and arrangements between the two may be made. As I said earlier, if some payment of rent is made and if a process had been started, it would have to start again from scratch.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I understand that if the rent is paid in full you go back to square 1. But if the rent is only partly paid, what is the position? Our concern here, as many people have said, is about unscrupulous landlords who will use these provisions for a perverse effect. If somebody has only part-paid the rent that would give them the opportunity of doing so.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
In terms of part-payment of rent, if any rent is being paid, the process would be ended. It is about abandoning a property—no rent being paid. It is not about part-payment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
There would be a balanced view on this. As I have tried to set out, where payment is being made, that is not abandonment of a property. As I have said to noble Lords, we are happy to discuss this in further detail to, I hope, allay concerns.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does this not all point to the need to have someone to check? That might well be a local authority.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, we believe there is a process that has a number of important elements to it. However, we have heard the strength of feeling in the House and look forward to discussing this in due course.
Lord Greaves
“Review of effectiveness of empty dwelling management orders etc.
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the operation and effectiveness of empty dwelling management orders and other provisions for bringing into use domestic properties that have been abandoned by their owners.(2) A report on the findings of the review must be published and laid before each House of Parliament.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, my purpose in moving this amendment is to raise a significant problem in some parts of the country. I am very aware that the kinds of areas I am talking about are very different from the areas that the Bill seems to be concentrating on—in London and the south-east and perhaps in similar areas. The sort of areas I am talking about are, for example, east Lancashire or west Cumbria, and lots of other places like them around England. It is a different world, but it is important.
The first point that I want to make is that there is not a housing market in this country that is the same everywhere. There are many different housing markets in different places which operate in different ways. The real problem that many of us have is that legislation is almost always on a one-size-fits-all basis and is written by people with what we would see to be a very south-east England viewpoint, although it is not just south-east England. I mention EDMOs—empty dwelling management orders—in this amendment but I want to talk particularly about the “et cetera” bit to mark the problem rather than just EDMOs. I will come to EDMOs towards the end.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am very supportive of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Empty homes represent both waste and a missed opportunity. They also leave the property at risk of squatting and subject to vandalism, and there is the blight that brings to the wider community—to which the noble Lord referred.
Empty dwelling management orders are a legal device which enable local authorities to put an unoccupied property back into use as housing, securing its occupation and getting it back into use as a home. The amendment seeks that, within six months of the Bill becoming an Act, a review must be commissioned into their operation and effectiveness. These orders were brought into law with a lot of support but have not proved effective or to be a device that has been used very much in recent years. A review is sensible at this time as it would enable us to identify if there is a problem with them and, if there is, to identify a solution. The second part of the amendment would require a report to be published and placed before Parliament.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred specifically to properties in the north of England. In my former area of west Cumberland and Lancashire, terraced houses often fetched little more than £30,000 to £50,000 at auction. However, there is another group of properties, in the south, which I sometimes wonder what is happening with. In some of the most expensive parts of London you will see properties that have been effectively abandoned by their owners. It might well be that the local authorities are involved, but sometimes these properties remain empty for years. Only the other day I was looking, on behalf of a relative, at a property near Tooting. In the same street, there was a house which was shown on the internet as being sold at auction, but I understand it had been derelict for several years, despite the existence of EDMOs which were introduced in 2006. One wonders what is happening there. Might the review which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is calling for include consideration of what is happening in the more expensive parts of the country to properties which stand abandoned but which would be better brought into use?
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on bringing forward this amendment. This is certainly a problematic area. The original legislation in 2004 was very well intentioned in its creation of the capacity for local authorities to make an order to take over the management of empty properties. However, only a trickle of orders have been made since then. In the first four years, only 43 orders were made in the country as a whole; 17 were made in 2014. That is not to say that other actions, short of an order, were not taken, perhaps of the kind described by the noble Lord and by my noble friend Lord Kennedy. Nevertheless, there is a clear issue here. The previous Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, changed the rules in 2012 to require a longer period—up to two years, as opposed to the original six months—after which an order could be started. This might be thought a somewhat perverse approach, given the paucity of cases before that time.
There is clearly a need, and I have experience of that in the ward I represent in Newcastle. About four or five years ago, my attention was drawn to two terraced houses—they are what are called Tyneside flats, with a lower flat and stairs leading up to one over it. They were empty, but they did not look in bad condition and were not creating any hazard in the area. It turned out that they had been like that for several years; it was a long-term problem. I got the council on the case, but the process is extremely protracted and difficult. In this case, it was compounded by arguments about who owned the property. It was not a straightforward question of looking it up at the Land Registry. Even apart from that, it was a very protracted process. Eventually, the council reached the point when—either by making the order but not directly taking over the property, or by coming to an agreement with the owners—the properties could be let.
That was bad enough, but there is another case, not that far away, of a property which is owned by an elderly lady who lives somewhere else. It is in a shocking state and the only thing I have been able to have done about it is to get the hugely overgrown garden cut back and the place tidied up. It has been empty now for many years. I have tried, more than once, to get the council to take proceedings and I think that it is now looking at that. It is in a nice residential street and is a great blot on the landscape—which at least the previous ones were not—and it lets down the whole character of the neighbourhood. I suspect that this is a significant issue and I hope that the Government will acknowledge that a properly considered view, based on evidence, should be formed.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, this amendment would insert a new clause into the Bill requiring a review of the effectiveness of empty dwelling management orders and other provisions for bringing into use domestic properties left empty by their owners. We welcome noble Lords’ interest in seeing properties being brought back into use to increase the housing supply, which is certainly an aim that the Government share, but we do not believe that this amendment is necessary because the range of measures we already have in place to tackle the issue of empty homes is working.
The Government have achieved a year-on-year reduction in long-term empty homes, with the number of homes that stand empty for more than six months now at the lowest level since records began. In London, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, empty homes are at an all-time low of 2%.
Lord Campbell-Savours
When the Minister talks about empty homes, does she mean homes on which no council tax is being paid? If council tax is being paid on an empty home, is it defined within those statistics?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That figure relates to unoccupied homes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, highlighted, local authorities have a range of powers to tackle empty homes. Through the new homes bonus they earn the same financial reward for bringing an empty home back into use as building a new one. As he also mentioned, councils may charge up to 150% council tax for homes left empty for over two years. They can CPO consistently neglected houses, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, highlighted, and there are also empty dwelling management orders, which can be used to regain possession of a long-term empty property, which has been empty for at least 2 years.
The Government want to strike a balance between respecting the liberties of responsible home owners and the need to tackle the harm caused to the local area when homes are left empty, as graphically outlined. The threat of issuing an empty dwelling management order is often enough to encourage an owner to bring a property back into use, so the number of orders issued is not necessarily a guide to how effective they are. Of course, local authorities have a range of powers at their disposal when seeking to tackle a property that has fallen into disrepair—for instance, through improvement notices under the Housing Act, or powers under the Building Act 1984 to deal with dangerous buildings. They can also tackle nuisances caused by properties using the Environmental Protection Act.
Our strong record on the economy has helped to create a buoyant housing market. Since 2009, over 880,000 new homes have been built in England and, in addition, owners are bringing more empty homes back into use without the need for government action. We believe that we have introduced a range of measures, which local authorities can use as they best see fit.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Sorry, I am not going to let this question go. Some unoccupied homes have council tax paid on them. There are quite a lot in London, where people who own expensive property leave it abandoned but continue to pay council tax. The question is whether they are included in the figures. I understand that this is a surprise question and I do not expect an immediate response, but I hope that we will be informed of that. If that is an issue—and there are a lot of these properties in London—then surely there should be some kind of report or review in the way that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have suggested. It would mean that there is an area of the market which we are not altogether aware of.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord makes a valid point. As he has kindly suggested, I will write to him with further details as I do not have the figures to hand. I hope that, in light of what I have said, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, half of whose speech was exactly the one I made in listing some of the powers that local authorities have in order to deal with empty homes and reduce their number. She is exactly right that some of those powers, such as levying council tax on empty homes, have contributed to a substantial reduction.
However, the Minister did not home in on my specific point about the relatively small number of properties which have effectively been abandoned and made derelict. They are the rotten teeth of the terraced streets, which cause immense problems. I am sure noble Lords can imagine the social problems that kids get in, or the effects of broken water pipes on neighbours. These problems are quite apart from the fact that people do not want to live on a street facing an empty property and therefore do not buy property on those streets, which reduces property values. This is a major problem in some parts of the country. The point I was trying to make—I thought I made it fairly well, but perhaps the Minister will read what I said and decide whether she agrees with me—is that the existing powers are no longer sufficient for allowing local authorities to deal with these problems.
The Minister mentioned improvement notices, which I deliberately did not include in order to keep my speech within 10 minutes. They are just the same. A council can make an improvement notice and if the owner does nothing do the work by default. It then has to put a charge on the property. Getting money back from people who have abandoned a property is not an easy thing to do and may well take many years, if it can be done at all. This is another example of a funding gap, where there is a cost to a local authority of using these powers in areas where the level of house prices and rents are low but the cost of the work is about the same as anywhere else in the country. In these areas, the cost of buying, doing work to and managing property is not matched by what the local authority can get in from selling, putting a charge on or renting the property. That is the difference. There is a gap and it is a serious problem, which applies to all of the different means that the Minister mentioned.
All I can ask is that the Minister and her colleagues look at this and write to me about how they think it may be solved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also speak to the 11 other amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of somewhere in Somerset.
We are moving now to Part 1, Chapter 1 and Clauses 1 to 7, and, possibly for the first time, to a part of the Bill that is causing widespread concern. My amendments and the other four in this group, with which I have considerable sympathy, seek to address at least one of those concerns about starter homes. I certainly have no objection to starter homes. As far as I know, neither do many other people, so the issue is not about starter homes as such. In the right circumstances and the right places they can make a useful addition to housing provision for some people.
The concern here is that Chapter 1 of Part 1 refers only to starter homes. The present wording imposes a clear duty on local authorities, as planning authorities, to promote starter homes, with no mention of any other tenures. Councils’ ability to choose a mix of home ownership tenures for planning obligations is completely fettered by the Bill as drafted. The concern is that in Section 106 discussions, for example, local authorities are likely to say—or at least to feel—that they have to deliver a certain number of starter homes and therefore that they cannot specify other forms of affordable ownership provision. I am sure we will hear from the Minister that that is not the Government’s intention but I fear it is very likely to be the effect.
The purpose of my amendments is to widen the duty on local authorities to promote home ownership schemes, including starter homes. It is about home ownership in that we recognise the priority that this Government give to home ownership. I have considerable sympathy with Amendment 37, which refers to,
“new homes across all tenures”,
but these amendments bring in the wider range of home ownership schemes.
As I have said, starter homes provide a useful means but the role of the local authority, as the planning authority, as well as sometimes the housing authority, is to meet all types of housing need, to be in the best position to judge what the local needs are—local needs are the key to this—and what type of tenure, in what volume, places and circumstances, is appropriate to that area. It may well include starter homes but it most certainly will include other types of home ownership and other forms of tenure. Therefore, we are concerned. I think there is widespread concern from the LGA, among others, about the fettering of local authority discretion in this way. I declare my interest as one of the vice-presidents of the LGA. The aim is to allow local authorities to determine for themselves—if I might say so, in the spirit of localism—what is best and most suitable for their areas without having necessarily to feel that they must give priority to any particular form.
I mentioned the LGA. It has indeed said that starter homes will be outside the reach of all people in need of affordable housing in 220 council areas. That is two-thirds of the whole country. Starter homes will not be effective for them. I am sure that other contributors to this debate will want to speak about that.
I have been approached on this subject by a range of organisations but particularly by Future Housing Review, which is supported by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and has a particular interest in shared ownership, which can make a significant contribution to housing need and is indeed one of—not the only one, by a long way—the housing provisions that we are talking about. I was pleased to note that in the Minister’s replies to a Question this afternoon she made several references to shared ownership schemes. I hope now that she has been briefed she will be able to expand a little more on that when she replies to this debate.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 36B, just moved, and refer to Amendments 47A and 53A in my name. I draw attention in the register of interests to my unremunerated position as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, which is a group bringing together those people who wish to support development in the area in which I live—an area which exhibits many of the characteristics that are most at the heart of this debate: a very high level of demand for new homes and a relatively high and accelerating price for new homes in and around Cambridge.
By virtue of the order of consideration, we are having this discussion ahead of what I would have preferred, which is a discussion about the definition of a starter home. We will come to that in a later group and I will talk to that later, if I may. If we had the clarification of the definition of a starter home that I am personally seeking—not least in an amendment I have in a later group—the requirement for amendments to Clauses 3 and 5 would fall away. I very much support the Government’s intention to promote starter homes and give young people the opportunity to buy their own home. I mean it as simply as that: building new homes with the objective of giving young people an opportunity to own their own home. The question is how we go about that and whether we should have not only a general duty but specific requirements for it. I am in favour of that and support the Government.
However, the definition of starter homes is narrow. In the context of this group of amendments, the issue is that in places such as Cambridge and the surrounding area, where I live, it is extremely difficult for many young people to afford a new home. Across the country generally, we have seen the amounts that young people have to acquire for deposits accelerating—perhaps doubling—in the last decade. We know that to buy a house outright with a mortgage, they are very often looking not only for a substantial deposit but for family help. The Council of Mortgage Lenders suggests that more than half of young people buying their own home now need family help to make that happen. Almost by definition, therefore, it is exceedingly difficult for young people seeking to buy their own home rather than rely on other forms of tenure to succeed in doing so if they do not have family income to support them or, certainly in my area, incomes in excess of some £70,000 for a couple trying to buy a home together. That is one of the reasons why the Government have made it very clear, as they did on Report in the other place, that they,
“strongly support the need for a range of products to improve access to homeownership”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/16; col. 151.]
I completely support the Government in this. However, the noble Lord, in moving his amendment, was clear that there are other schemes and significant government financial support to promote other means of securing home ownership. We should not dismiss those.
However, the issue in this legislation, especially in Clause 3, is whether a local authority should have a duty to promote the supply of a particular form—a subset as it were—of the homes that young people might aspire to buy, through various routes. We instantly get into difficulty there. The Government are clear, through the structure of Clause 3, that this does not impede the local authority from making its local plan in terms of permission in principle. However, once these local plans are in place and give access to sufficient land for housing need generally in an area, if local authorities, as a consequence of this additional duty, have a preferential or discriminatory duty in favour of planning applications being made available only for certain types of new housing, that will entail an opportunity cost for the provision of other housing. The balance of need in an area may not necessarily correspond with what young people in that area are looking to acquire, especially young people with local connections trying to access what I would regard as starter homes with particular support, if the definition of what a local authority must seek to promote is very narrowly defined and does not enable some of those additional products to be available to them.
That is rather a long-winded way of saying that in Clause 3, the Government are looking for local authorities to have a general duty to promote starter homes. If starter homes are properly defined, I am all for that; if starter homes are narrowly defined, a local authority must have the discretion to pursue other mechanisms for promoting home ownership and to help young people buy their own homes. Amendments 47A and 53A, which I have put down, bear on Clauses 3 and 5 but not on Clause 4, which we are going on to debate. There would be a duty on local authorities to promote starter homes or alternative affordable home ownership products, but that would not prevent the Secretary of State setting a starter home requirement. Local authorities would not be without a degree of specific requirements to meet the Government’s manifesto objective. I support the manifesto objective, and want us to achieve it, but starter homes, which we shall come to debate, are too narrowly defined in the Bill at present in the context of that requirement.
That said, the Government have a manifesto commitment and must, I think, have the right—which Clause 4 would continue to give the Secretary of State —to pursue it by setting specific requirements for local authorities. But the Government should do it in a more permissive context for local authorities, so that they could at the same time recognise that they have to be able to accommodate other schemes, which we all support, through the planning system—for example shared ownership and rent-to-buy schemes. That is why these amendments are there. I hope in a later group to be able to explain a better way of dealing with this, which is for starter homes to be differently defined.
Lord Best
My Lords, Amendments 47B and 53B follow on from the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, whose comments I much appreciated, and support the 12 amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. They would change the duty on local planning authorities from that of promoting starter homes exclusively to that of also promoting alternative home ownership schemes, with the added ingredient, in these amendments, that these extra home ownership products should be approved by the Secretary of State. The amendments in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake, Lord Kennedy, Lord Beecham and Lord Stoneham, provide the opportunity for other—equally if not more desirable—home ownership products to be permitted in place of the one-club approach, the single option of 20% discounted starter homes.
The bright ideas of policy advisers may not always represent the only or the best approach and the starter homes initiative got its star billing without consultation with key practitioners or other politicians. In the event that a more creative, more beneficial route to home ownership already exists—or may be invented in the future—it seems wise for the Secretary of State to allow for alternatives.
My amendments would not help, sadly, the fledgling new sector of build to rent, where institutional investors are putting in long-term money to build decent market rental housing. This amendment is only about alternative home ownership products, and I am concerned that, as the British Property Federation has warned, the gradually evolving institutional rented sector is likely to lose out to its new rival of subsidised starter homes. Build to rent also addresses the demand from younger people who cannot raise sufficient deposits and/or a large enough mortgage. The sector helpfully draws in new resources from pension funds and other institutional investors, and several build-to-rent developers are now offering good-quality and longer-term security than is common in the PRS at large. But this newly emerging sector will not be able to take advantage of the grant of many thousands of pounds going to each first-time buyer of a starter home.
I am sorry these amendments will not be useful to the build-to-rent proponents. However, they seek to recognise the Government’s ambition that home ownership should take precedence over renting. Within the open market, this government priority is understandable. By extending the range of home ownership products to embrace schemes that may well prove more desirable than starter homes, these amendments and those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would assist the Government’s overarching aim.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I add my support to this group of amendments, and I declare an interest as chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association.
It is worth recalling that the product—starter homes—had its origins in the coalition Government. It came forward as an interesting idea that would be genuinely additional to other new sources of supply. It would be applicable to what were described as brownfield exception sites—those that had not previously been identified for housing and could therefore be built on with this product. The uplift in values would cover the 20%. It was, therefore, an interesting, innovative idea with some rather ambitious numbers attached to it. In six months—between then and the election—it moved from being an interesting, innovative idea to being the main source of new supply. There is usually an in-between stage—it is called “trying something out first”. We have not yet had a property sold as a starter home; we do not yet know in detail what constitutes a starter home. Yet it becomes the centrepiece of this Bill. It makes absolute sense to think about other forms of home ownership and—we will come to this later—to let local authorities have the flexibility to think through the different sorts of tenure that they require.
On Second Reading I was clear that there is only one sustainable route to better access to home ownership: it is to build more houses. There is, ultimately, no other way to sort this problem. In the end, these access products reward a selective group of people who are able to benefit from them. In the case of Help to Buy it is an equity contribution, so people are expected to return it, as with shared ownership. In the case of starter homes—as we will discuss later—it is, in effect, a one-off gift to a select number of people. In this group of amendments, therefore, I encourage the Government to think carefully about putting every bit of their focus on starter homes at the start of this Bill, and to accept the very sensible amendments that seek to broaden this section to include other forms of home ownership. We can debate later, under other groupings, whether this product is properly formed in the first place.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments, particularly in reference to home ownership and starter homes, I think it goes without saying that the need to provide enough homes to meet demand is one of today’s defining challenges. I therefore welcome initiatives such as the provision of starter homes, the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants and the continuation of reforms to the planning system undertaken in the previous Parliament. Such measures will enable low-income families to own their own homes and provide stability for their families.
As noble Lords know, the rate of home ownership has been falling since its peak in 2003, despite the aspiration to home ownership remaining very strong. Since spring 2010 nearly 270,000 households have been helped to purchase a home through government-backed schemes, including Help to Buy and the right to buy. However, younger households in particular are now less likely to own their homes than a decade ago. We must therefore ensure that more young people are able to aspire to home ownership. I support the Government’s manifesto commitment to build 200,000 starter homes over the course of the Parliament.
Starter homes are essential to increase housing supply and will encourage younger couples who wish to start a family to get on the property ladder and provide security for their future families. To this end, the Bill includes a general duty on English planning authorities and embeds starter homes in the planning system. This will make it easier and faster for planning permission for houses to be granted and make interventions in the local planning process smarter.
However, on this point I hope that the Minister will say how the Government will assist councils in meeting these important duties. The introduction of a much-needed database, and the Government’s amendment to have it maintained by the Secretary of State rather than by local authorities—for reasons of clarity and simplicity—will allow greater co-operation between local authorities in tracking banning orders and make monitoring of ongoing trends more centrally focused. This national co-operation will prevent serious or repeat offenders from causing harm and misery to renters and placing them at serious risk from letting properties. There should be no room for such operators in the sector.
This Bill provides extensive scope for the role of local government and new duties that they must act on.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lord Tope on these amendments, particularly the provisions that the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kerslake, spoke to. I also have some sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about the need to widen the definition of these starter homes so that we look at alternative models of affordable homes that can be approved by the Secretary of State. We will debate later in Committee whether the starter homes initiative will lead to balanced and mixed communities, and the implications of that, about which I have severe doubts. We are also going to discuss the wider issue of the impact on social housing provision, and I declare an interest as chair of Housing & Care 21.
This model of starter homes will not apply to huge areas of the country; people there will not be able to benefit, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, explained. Although the main aim should be to build more homes, if we genuinely want to increase ownership we must look at more than one size fits all. The Government may find, if they concentrate overly on starter homes—I understand that they are doing that because it is a convenient target to get people moving—that the type of houses we are building in the long term become unsuitable.
There are two aspects of this that are quite an issue. Frankly, too many starter homes in one local market could cause market distortions, both initially, when they are trying to sell these homes, and at the end of the five years, when the purchaser can effectively take advantage of the discount. This concentration of building of starter homes will both put off lenders from lending on those houses in those areas and may well deter developers from developing sufficiently fast, as they would where they were developing more mixed tenures and different forms of owner-occupation. The communities themselves will be very unbalanced.
The amendment is an attempt to achieve greater diversity of products, which may make homes more affordable and achievable, and, by varying the nature of the home ownership, deter what could otherwise lead to quite severe distortions of the market. If we distort the market, we will put off developers and lenders, and end up not building as many homes as we need.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who introduced the lead amendment, I believe that there is enormously wide concern about this aspect of the Bill, and I certainly support this group of amendments.
As we have heard, Chapter 1 refers only to starter homes. The Bill’s demand that starter homes should carry the whole focus of housing provision means that localism and local decision-making is absolutely fettered. The fact that absolute priority is given to home ownership and starter homes is wrong. Of course, there is a place for home ownership, and I want everybody who aspires to own their own home to do so, but, whether we like it or not, many people will never be able to own their own home, and some do not wish to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, who is not in her place, spoke of the need for people to own their own homes to provide their families with stability. Most families would like a roof over their heads to provide them with stability, and that may well mean affordable rents and affordable homes. They do not necessarily have to own them. Like the rural housing group, I believe that the proposals, with their emphasis on starter homes, will undermine future provision of affordable housing in rural communities.
As we have heard, in many areas, including Cambridgeshire, even starter homes will not be affordable for many people. Shelter tells us that people in only 2% of local authority areas will be able to buy their own homes, even starter homes. In Gloucestershire, where I live, the median income for residents in 2014 was £20,935 per annum. Even with a substantial £20,000 deposit, that would be insufficient to buy a property in most villages, with or without a 20% discount. I understand what median means: for many people who I know, that income is a king’s ransom. The living wage is about £14,000 per annum. There are so many people who will simply not be affected by the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned that, at Report in the other place, the Minister talked about other forms of home ownership, which is encouraging, because other forms of home ownership can help people who cannot afford to buy their homes outright. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government intend to make it explicit in the Bill that they are in favour of other forms of home ownership, not just starter homes, because they cannot be the be-all and end-all.
The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kerslake, mentioned the history of starter homes, which were a glorious idea devised by people thinking up innovative policies. That is great, we need innovative policies—but as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, they must be tried out first. A policy which looks good on paper cannot suddenly become the main focus of a Bill; that is entirely wrong. I hope the Government will recognise that more thought needs to be put into the policy.
The concentration of starter homes could indeed distort the market, as others have said, and provide an imbalance in our communities. I simply do not think that the focus on starter homes in the Bill provides the solution that we need to the housing crisis in this country. We will come on to many other things in that area later, but starter homes cannot be the be-all and end-all. They can be one part of the recipe to provide a solution to the current crisis, but they cannot be the only answer.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I agree with most of the points made on this first tranche of amendments in this chapter. Although I welcome the Government’s aim to increase the supply of starter homes for those currently attempting to get on the first rung of the home ownership ladder, like others, I remain concerned that this policy is seen as the only route to provide a home for those who are in need. Home ownership is something that many residents of the country aspire to but, as has been said, by no means all of them.
Limiting the Bill to starter homes rules out other avenues of home ownership. As your Lordships are aware, there are other products in the marketplace, such as shared ownership, which we have already heard about, and the Help to Buy equity loan scheme run by the Homes and Communities Agency. By promoting starter homes to the exclusion of all other options, the Government are raising the expectation of those under the age limit that they will definitely qualify for a starter home with a hefty discount. This will lead many of them not to explore other options which could assist them to get on the housing ladder.
As the Government have already made clear, there will not be a limitless supply of starter homes. Indeed, supply will be restricted by the resources raised through the sale of high-value council homes—a policy to which we will come later in Committee. This rationing of starter homes is not clear to those whose ambitions have been raised. By concentrating wholly on their starter homes programme, the Government are setting many people up to be bitterly disappointed. Realism dictates that the Government should promote other forms of home ownership simultaneously with their starter homes programme.
We now come to the thorny issue of how these new home buyers will finance their purchase. They may have a deposit, but that does not appear to be a requirement in the Bill. They will receive a discount of “at least 20%” on the purchase price. Presumably, this is the cost of the plot plus the building costs—in other words, the market price for which a developer could expect to sell the property on the open market, outside the Government’s starter home programme. The buyer will then need to go out to the market to borrow the remainder of the purchase price of their home, so some of these purchasers will be looking to borrow up to £200,000 outside London and £360,000 in London.
In Clause 2(3), the criteria are very clear as to who these people will be: first-time buyers under the age of 40 who have “other characteristics” to be specified by the Secretary of State—which are not yet decided. The sooner the Secretary of State sets out what these other characteristics may be, the more certainty can be brought to those waiting to buy their first home.
As your Lordships are aware, there are many anecdotal stories about how difficult it is to obtain mortgages from traditional sources, with those who have been in extremely well-paid employment for a long time, looking to move from one property to another, being refused finance on the flimsiest of grounds. We cannot blame the banks or building societies for being reticent to lend when they have had their fingers burnt in recent years. However, if they will not lend to those with a good track record of repaying their mortgages and loans in a timely manner, how on earth will we encourage them to lend to those who have no track record? The very fact that they are first-time buyers means that they will not have had a mortgage in the past. The Government will need to produce an effective scheme which will encourage lenders to participate in a starter homes programme.
I note from the Statement of 19 January that those areas engaged in the pilots will get their administration costs reimbursed only during the six months of the pilot and will be reimbursed for the capital expended once the Bill has received Royal Assent. Given that the consultation is still ongoing on many aspects of this Bill, can the Minister be confident that the Bill will receive Royal Assent in sufficient time to help those housing associations engaged in the pilot to balance their books? Like others, I look forward to these five pilots being concluded.
Even with the discount supplied, research carried out by Savills on behalf of the Local Government Association—and like others I am a vice-president of the LGA—shows that starter homes would be out of reach of all people in need of affordable housing in 220 council areas, as my noble friend Lord Tope, has said, and out of reach of 90% in a further 80 council areas. The definition of people in need of affordable housing are those who have to spend 30% of their household income in rent or buying a home. Many will be spending a great deal more than 30% on housing. With 92% of council areas out of reach for those needing affordable housing, there are going to be some very disappointed and disaffected residents in the country.
Many in this House and outside are concerned that the starter homes will not necessarily be for the benefit of those originally intended. It is essential that these new starter homes should be the only residence of those who buy them. It would be against the spirit of the Bill if these homes were then rented out to others or sold on at a profit after only five years. I urge the Government to put the condition of the home being the only residence of the owner or owners in the Bill to avoid any doubt and to protect those who truly wish to participate in the scheme to acquire their own home.
The Government’s aim is to deliver 100,000 new homes over a five-year period, but that is only scratching the surface of the homes that are needed. A mix of housing is what is needed, including home ownership outside of starter homes. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment in order to achieve the Government’s aim.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to speak for any length of time because in discussing these amendments and the following amendments, which cover largely the same area, I defer to the greater expertise of many other noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Kerslake and Lord Tope. However, I am struck by one thing as a relative newcomer to housing debates—that is, the extent to which we are proceeding in the dark. I went to a very interesting meeting, which I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Williams for laying on, to discuss technical aspects of the Bill. A number of noble Lords were there, and it was very interesting to clear up some of the definitions, and so forth, as far as we could. What was apparent was that the Government really had not begun to finalise any sort of modelling of the effect of the legislation—not only the financial effect, which is very germane to our discussion, but the social effect and the effects on supply of housing.
I think that we would all agree that one has to think very clearly about housing as it is a complicated situation and an important topic. It is the Government’s responsibility to think clearly, and I think we all agree that the issue is really shortage of supply rather than tenure. That is the fundamental point with which we are trying to grapple. Therefore, it behoves the Government not to let issues of tenure, whether in social housing, starter homes or wherever, get in the way of the fundamental point about shortage of supply of whatever kind of housing it may be. In trying to get at what the Government could say about the effect on housing supply and other financial matters, they confessed—and I am grateful for this to the civil servants who were there—that they had not got far enough with their modelling, simply because Ministers had not taken decisions yet. I understand that, too, but we are a long way down the road. We have had 17 Committee sittings in the other place and we are now in Committee here. Some important definitions and considerations have not been finalised and do not look as though they will be finalised for some time, which places the House in a quandary in trying to reach a clear conclusion, whatever point of view you may have.
The only bit of information that I have been able to glean by way of the consequences of this particular set of clauses on starter homes was provided by the Local Government Association. I do not know whether it is accurate or not, but the LGA says that in its present form,
“should 100,000 starter homes”—
and that is an ambitious figure—
“be built through the planning system, between 56,000 and 71,000 social and affordable rented homes would not be built”.
In other words, there is a sacrifice, in concentrating on the single issue of starter homes, of social rented homes, which we know are even more needed by even poorer people than those whom we hope will buy these starter homes.
This is the difficulty that we have. Is the figure accurate? Where has it come from? Is it the Government’s own figure? I would be interested to hear the Minister comment on this, although I do not necessarily expect her to comment this evening because I have just produced it out of the blue. But that sort of figure, without any further government explanation about what they expect the consequences of this legislation to be, is very worrying. Therefore, I hope that we can go into this as thoroughly as possible—but I fear that, even at the end of a day’s debate on this subject, around which there is a great deal of concern and interest on the part of Members, we will not be very much further forward.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. We are tackling this the wrong way round. The right way round would have been to say, “There is a housing shortage. How do we tackle that and maximise housing supply?” We have three different methods of tackling supply. We have the private sector, housing associations and councils. How do we maximise the output of those three? Let us sit down and discuss that and consult expert opinion. It has happened the other way around. Someone has had a bright idea. I am not against bright ideas, I am all in favour of them, but if they do not go through the necessary and rather boring business of being talked through by people who know what they are talking about, we are liable to end up in the sort of situation we have now. Undoubtedly, this may be a very sensible idea, but we do not really know and we do not have the information to hand to decide on it. Yet this is really rather late in the process, and if we get it wrong we may have adverse effects when the Government are trying to make a favourable effect. So I am concerned from that point of view.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, that contribution was the key one in our debate, because it raises the issue of the impact of this legislation and how it will affect demand. What is absolutely clear is that many local authorities are expressing profound concern over this concentration on starter homes and a single source of housing supply to the exclusion of other forms of tenure. That is what has come through in the course of this debate—this feeling of concern about concentration on one area.
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, referred specifically to whether this work has been done. It is interesting to note that Bristol has actually done this work. I draw attention to a document sent to me that sets out findings in this area—because I suspect that what Bristol found mirrors a difficulty that we would find throughout the United Kingdom.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I hope I will be forgiven for intervening again. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, mentioned a meeting with the Minister which I regret I was not able to attend. He mentioned some modelling which civil servants were doing on the impact of this policy. Will the Minister say when we are likely to receive further information about that modelling and what the recommendations are? As I have expressed in this House before, I think it is invidious if we are asked to proceed with this Bill without seeing some of the key regulations tabled by the Secretary of State. We cannot be expected to make such important policy which is going to affect the lives and well-being of so many of our citizens if we are not able to see the outcome of the modelling and whether or not this Bill is evidence-based in any way.
Lord Horam
Perhaps I can just explain that the Minister was not present at the meeting. She kindly arranged for her civil servants to address technical questions. I asked what modelling had been done on the financial and supply effects of the legislation and the civil servants were kind enough to say that the modelling was not finished because certain decisions had not yet been taken. The definition has not been finalised and therefore they could not give me an answer. I raised the question in the House because I think it is important, as we go through the Bill, that we address these questions if possible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, what worries me above all is that starter homes are supposed to fly the flag for affordable housing. Behind that is a recognition by the Government that the problem in this country is the lack of affordable housing, which in turn is determined by the lack of new and adequate housebuilding. Starter homes are just one part of a complicated jigsaw that the Government are offering us which all pushes in one direction—away from making social and affordable housing available to people on modest incomes. Later on in the Bill we are going to get the sale of housing association homes through right to buy, which, if council housing sales are anything to go by, will quickly be turned into buy-to-lets and then into student housing, and away from housing for young families who need affordable homes in which to bring up their children and live their lives.
Secondly, we are going to see the sale of empty council housing into owner occupation over and beyond local authority RTB in order to fund the discounts on the sale of housing association properties into owner occupation. So we will lose housing association properties and we will probably double the number of local authority housing sales—all away from affordable housing. On top of that we are ensuring that Section 106 land and grants, which have been the source of so much housing association and local authority building, will now become monopolised by starter homes. At the same time we are knocking out shared ownership.
So what is actually happening is that the sole concept of affordable housing, both for the future and with the recycling of existing property, is going to be starter homes—the only game in town. Housing association properties should be sold with discounts into right to buy; local authority RTB will continue; and on top of that empty homes will be sold to fund the discounts for housing association tenants to be able to buy in order to send the stock into buy-to-let in due course. And on top of that, not only can local authorities and housing associations not replace that stock but they will now find—because of the requirements of central government—that their Section 106 land will be available exclusively and solely for starter homes. So for the whole of the next decade, if the Government have their way, the affordable housing programme for those in the greatest need, who have least leverage in the market, whose need is highest, will have just one option, starter homes—which, we are told by Savills, will not benefit 90% of them. I ask the Minister: what on earth do the Government think they are doing?
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, at the risk of prolonging this very interesting debate, I should say that my employer is a firm of chartered quantity surveyors and one of the things that we do is assist housebuilders. We have a sister company that has just secured a large contract to build houses.
It has become apparent to me as the discussion has gone on, as it was apparent to me at Second Reading, that this Bill has a very small component related to the need to build new houses generally. It just is not there, because all we have is a reference to starter homes and a reference to self-build and custom housebuilding. Those are the only two bits concerned with building new homes of any sort, so there must be a working assumption sitting behind this that somehow, in the big, wide world out there, the general thrust towards new homes will continue and that a proportion of those —on the principle of the affordable housing component under Section 106, the community infrastructure levy or whatever it happens to be—will be devoted to an element of affordability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is right in the sense that I can confirm, from speaking to developers, that they are of the view that conventional affordability, in terms of affordable rents, will go into some form of attrition and that starter homes will indeed be the only show in town. That appears to be the belief among housebuilders. I pass no particular judgment in relation to government policy—I have to accept that this is something that they have as a manifesto commitment, and it is up to us to scrutinise the matter and make sure that it is, as far as possible, fit for purpose—but there is no doubt that the starter home will effectively be not affordable in any sort of perpetuity but will be a one-off windfall for the first person who happens to occupy it.
It is very important therefore that the studies to which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and other noble Lords referred should be before us. The outcome of those pilot studies should be known so that we can assess this. Otherwise, it seems to me that we are in a very brave new world indeed, in which we know neither the outcome nor, indeed, a great deal of the process that sits behind this. So I have to say that I am with noble Lords who have tabled the amendments in this group in terms of having doubts about this. I have other doubts which I have expressed in meetings which the Minister was kind enough to convene some time ago—although I was not able to attend the most recent one—about the financial viability of how this works and how you retain the substance of the starter home, or social concession, within the system.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have three questions for the Minister. They are not particularly related, but they are all part of the starter homes thing. First, I shall pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said. He caused my eyebrows to rise a little bit when he said that it is all about quantity of housing and not about tenure. I basically disagree with that, but perhaps I am a more ideological politician than the noble Lord.
Lord Greaves
Well, yes, it would not be difficult. Perhaps that is why he was never in the same party as me.
Lord Greaves
He came very close. We had our times together.
Then I heard the noble Lord talk about unintended consequences, and it seems to me that this proposal is full of the threat of unintended consequences. I go back to the point I made previously, which was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Best, that this Bill is trying to fit everybody into the same pot. It is one size fits all, when what we need is a series of different answers to the problems of the housing market in different parts of the country.
When I spoke previously, I said that there are lots of different housing markets—perhaps 100—around the country. The person who first gave me that idea is now in his place and is my noble friend Lord Stunell, who gave us a talk when he was a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government in which he kept hammering home the point that you cannot have one rule for everybody. That means that there have to be local mechanisms for finding solutions. The only people who can legitimately do that and set out to find those mechanisms and policies are the elected local authority.
Having said that, I will ask the Minister the following three questions. One relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Horam. In 2001, owner-occupation in this country reached a peak of 69%. By 2011, it had gone down to 64%, and it is now somewhere in the low 60s. I suggest that that is an unintended consequence of a number of different policies. I believe that owner-occupation is the best form of tenure, although there are people for whom it is not appropriate and people who would not want it. I first got involved in politics at the end of the 1950s, joining the Liberal Party when “Ownership for all” was a Liberal slogan. It is still a good slogan, if a little on the extreme side. My question for the Minister is: do the Government have a target of what they think is a reasonable level of owner-occupation in this country? Are they content for the level to continue to slip until it gets down to perhaps 50%, or do they want to boost it again, and if so, how far do they think we can reasonably get the level to?
The second question is totally unrelated to that and is just a question I realised I did not know the answer to. Is a person or a young couple who buy a house which is a starter home, and therefore get the 20% discount on the market price, also entitled to the 20% Help to Buy discount if they qualify for that? That is just a straight question, because if that were the case it would have an interesting impact.
My final question goes back to the kind of area which I know best, which covers a lot of the north of England outside the most rural areas and the big cities—and perhaps some of the big cities, too—as well as a lot of the rest of the country as well. What is a local authority supposed to do if it cannot find anybody who wants to build starter homes? That may seem a ludicrous question in some parts of the country, but it is not a ludicrous question in the part of the country where I live. It is quite possible that local or big housebuilding companies will not want to build any starter homes, for a whole series of reasons.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I have to say that I rather struggled, as, I suspect, other Members of your Lordships’ House may have done, with the huge number of amendments in this group and the following group, which are in many ways connected. It has not made preparing for the debate—or, I suspect, replying to the debate, for the Ministers—a very easy job. However, we have heard some extremely interesting contributions, and I hope the Government will listen very carefully to the views not just of members of different political parties but particularly of the Cross-Bench Members, who have brought their experience and independence of mind to bear on these very important problems.
In the first instance, I will speak to Amendment 48, which relates to the provision of starter homes and which relates particularly to Clause 3, under which the Bill lays down:
“An English planning authority must carry out its relevant planning functions with a view to promoting the supply of starter homes in England”.
So far, so good. Subsection (2) continues:
“A local planning authority … must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State in carrying out that duty”.
Amendment 48 would add to that subsection (2) something of a restriction so that it would continue,
“except where the local authority considers that providing starter homes would prevent other types of affordable housing being built”.
In other words, it introduces into the Bill the notions that there has to be a balance between the provision of starter homes and other affordable homes, and that the Secretary of State should not be able simply to prescribe that the one—starter homes—must always prevail over any other considerations. That seems a sensible way forward.
It is interesting to read the policy fact sheet on starter homes published by the department, which lays down the general nature of the Bill. It asks what the Bill hopes to achieve and answers,
“a general duty on English planning authorities to promote the supply of starter homes when carrying out their planning functions”.
So far, that is quite acceptable. However, it continues with,
“allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations to create a starter homes requirement, so that English planning authorities may only grant planning permission if the starter homes requirement is met. This will ensure that starter homes are delivered on suitable, reasonably sized sites”.
That is not necessarily a logical conclusion, but the important thing is that it makes an absolute duty, which will ultimately be fleshed out in regulations and which, needless to say, we will not have sight of before the Bill is enacted, if it is enacted in its present form. Moreover, nothing is said either here or in any other area about the salient fact that the requirement will not necessarily be confined to providing such starter homes for residents within the locality. They could come from far away or perhaps from adjoining authorities, but there is no indication that the planning requirement will address the needs of people within the very authority that will have to carry out these proposals.
Interestingly, the fact sheet says that the Government are consulting until 22 February. Admittedly, that is only a week or so ago; given the time we have to consider the Bill, I agree that that is rather a limited period, but we do not know quite when the consultation started. They are consulting,
“on changes to national planning policy to complement these legislative reforms”,
which seems somewhat akin to the old Alice in Wonderland trope of “Sentence first—verdict afterwards”. We do not know what the consultation will produce, but the Government are in any event determined to impose their view. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, who is in some danger of being accused of political recidivism on the basis of his extremely sensible contributions to the debates on the Bill, has indicated, rightly, that we are proceeding in the dark. Of course, we have been stumbling in the dark over many Bills, given the way the Government decide to conduct their business, particularly with reference to pending secondary legislation or regulations. However, the noble Lord is also right to identify that there are no available financial data within the information that is before the Committee or, presumably, that is likely to be before it. These are surely major considerations.
Reference has been made to some of the issues which are clearly of concern, in particular the position on who will be eligible for, and capable of benefiting from, the starter home concept. In particular, we have heard of the Shelter report, which makes it clear that for a majority of people who are not on high wages or without dual salaries, the starter home project will not help them get on the ladder at all; they simply will not be able to afford it.
My noble friend Lady Royall referred to the very small percentage of authorities—I think it was 2% of authorities—in which people on the national living wage would be capable of buying a starter home; even those on average earnings are likely to be able to buy in only 42% of local authorities. That is not a particularly impressive extension of what is meant to be an important right.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, before I begin my reply on this group of amendments, perhaps I may point out that Amendment 50G has not been spoken to. I am sorry if the noble Lord might have been slightly distracted, but Amendment 48 is in the next group. I am very happy to accommodate and address Amendment 48 now. Do the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, wish to speak to Amendment 50G, or shall I just refer to it?
Lord Tope
My Lords, I do not know exactly what is going on, but I recall starting very clearly by saying that I was speaking to all my amendments. In fact, I counted them off. If the Minister would include whatever it was that I must have forgotten to make specific reference to I would be very grateful—otherwise, we could start the debate all over again.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I just tried to do that for completion’s sake and to be helpful.
Lord Kerslake
I think that many of us split up our contributions in the expectation that we would consider Amendment 48 in more depth in the next grouping.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
In which case, do noble Lords want a response to it now, or to wait until the next group?
Lord Beecham
Seeing as I have confused everybody—including myself—I think it would be better to deal with Amendment 48 in the next group.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
If that is what noble Lords would like, that is what we will do. I just wanted all noble Lords to be satisfied that, if they wanted to speak to an amendment, they had the opportunity and I was not just running roughshod. If I miss out any contributions from noble Lords, please have a bit of sympathy with me because this has been quite a significant debate.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for the amendments. I support the intention behind them, which is to highlight that other home ownership products as well as starter homes can serve the needs of first-time buyers. I hope that I can refer to that in my comments on funding and on the Bill, but I hope that noble Lords will feel that the amendments are not necessary, as I will explain.
Amendment 46A from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, Amendment 47A from my noble friend Lord Lansley, and Amendment 47B from the noble Lord, Lord Best, all seek to extend the duty to promote starter homes under Clause 3 to other forms of home ownership. Amendment 48D and associated amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, seek to change the starter home requirement under Clause 4 to cover home ownership more broadly.
There was a question from, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about whether everyone aspires to own their own home. There is evidence that the vast majority of people—some 86%—aspire to own their own home. We are determined to extend the opportunity of home ownership to hard-working families by measures aimed at doubling the number of first-time buyers. We believe that shared ownership and other home ownership products have an important role to play as part of the diverse and thriving housing market in helping those who aspire to home ownership but who may be unable to afford it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, how does the noble Baroness square that circle? It is great that the Government wish to ensure that everybody who aspires to own their own home can do so, but the figures that the noble Baroness gives do not match the figures that we have quoted around the Chamber on the finances that individuals and families have. Even with the 20% discount it is clear that the vast majority of people in this country are unable to buy the starter homes.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I was going to come on to that later, but I will deal with it now. Excluding London—I absolutely appreciate that London is a different case—the average price of an affordable home will be £145,000. A couple on the mean wage in this country, £26,000, would be well able to afford a starter home or an affordable home. The point I am trying to get at—and I appreciate that not everyone is on the mean wage, because by definition there will be a lot of people under it—is that there are other products available, such as shared ownership. Outside London, it is estimated that the deposit required for a shared-ownership home is approximately £1,400, but there may be people unable to access even the shared-ownership home market. We have announced £1.6 billion to put into 100,000 affordable homes for rent. They are examples of what products are available within the various affordability brackets.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
We all share the concept of mixed tenures. I built several thousand houses for sale when builders would not and attached 100% mortgages when building societies would not, to give people choice. That is fine. My problem, which the Minister has not so far addressed—maybe she will go on to do so—is that by exclusively emphasising starter homes while reducing affordable rent in the housing association and local authority sectors, those at the bottom will be squeezed out of the opportunities not of buying, but of living in a decent affordable home.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I get what the noble Baroness says, but for home ownership there are those at the bottom as well. We have to start somewhere. The starter homes will address a demographic that is not being served and has not been for more than 20 years. In terms of the Government putting their money where their mouth is, £20 billion is an awful lot of money over the spending period.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
All of the Section 106 land on which alternative, affordable rented housing would be built will be monopolised—used exclusively for, effectively—starter homes.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there will be an expectation from the Secretary of State that a certain percentage of housing will be starter homes, but it does not exclude other types of tenure. There will be fundamental disagreement on this, but the emphasis on younger buyers is there because they are the demographic that has been priced out of home ownership for the last 20 years, as I said.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, there are some 9,000 or 10,000 families in Norfolk, waiting patiently on waiting lists for affordable social housing. Why is that demographic not worth thinking about?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the £1.6 billion to build 100,000 affordable rented homes will add to the mix of addressing supply. As noble Lords have said this afternoon, the fundamental issue of the housing market today is lack of supply. All these different types of tenure will add to the supply. I accept that we will disagree, but one cannot—
Lord Greaves
I wonder if I can just tempt the Minister again to say perhaps that in many parts—or even most parts—of the country that is the case? Lack of supply is not the case in areas where the market has collapsed, and we need different policies to solve the problems we have got and provide people with good homes.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not think that the noble Lord is wrong that in certain parts of the country—and I think I know the parts he is referring to—home ownership has declined because people do not want to live there. I think that some of the regeneration and transport policies and some of the policies for the northern powerhouse for rebalancing the economy will contribute to all parts of the country being able to maximise their economic potential and make people want to live there. I give the example of Salford, where MediaCity was built. That area of Salford is a very desirable place to buy.
There are a number of interventions that the Government can make that all add to the mix of a place being an attractive place to live. I have seen where transport investment suddenly has made areas that people did not want to go near—Wythenshawe—into ones where suddenly the house prices have increased dramatically. They are becoming very vibrant places in which to live because of those transport links and investment in the airport. I accept that point. We cannot just take individual government policies and criticise them. We have to take everything in the mix in terms of improving and rebalancing our economy outside the south-east while recognising that the south-east is a fantastic place to live and is the engine of this country in many ways.
Lord Beecham
One of the interventions the Government have made has been to impose a 1% reduction in rents for social housing, which is going to have a significant impact on the capacity of local authorities and the housing association sector to maintain or improve stock or build. That reduction will reflect itself in a reduction in housing benefit to local authority tenants but will not in any way contribute towards meeting housing need.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we have talked a lot this afternoon about tenants and tenants on lower incomes and actually the 1% reduction will help tenants. Housing associations are in a very—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Three-quarters of the money saved goes back to the Exchequer; only one-quarter stays with tenants.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, could I just make some progress? I may be repeating myself here but the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked what other products were reflected in the Bill and, of course, custom and self-build is referred to. It is a small but important part of the market and, culturally in this country, it is a part of the market we have not taken a lot of notice of over the last few years but there is a desire for people to get involved in custom and new build.
I shall go back to talking about housing growth in all tenures. Some of the planning reforms to help builders to get building are included in later parts of the Bill. To help councils build their own homes we have increased borrowing headroom by £222 million for 36 councils and we are continuing and building on our Help to Buy programme to support new housebuilding.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked whether people could afford to buy. I hope I have partially answered that question by answering the intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, in terms of affordable house prices outside London.
Lord Campbell-Savours
On that matter the Minister said that a £150,000 house was affordable on an income of £26,000. That was the reply she gave. I was just looking it up on a mortgage calculator. After tax it is about 40% of income.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the example I gave was a couple on a mean wage of £26,000, not one person on £26,000. Four times one wage would be under £150,000. To clarify, I am talking about a couple on £26,000 each. It is the mean wage so I just gave it as an average example, if the noble Lord could accept that in the context in which it was given. It was an average example of an average couple.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked when we will get the details of the review of shared ownership. It was a commitment made by the previous Government. This Government carried out an internal review which resulted in the announcement of 135,000 shared ownership units in the spending review of 2015. The prospectus for the shared ownership programme is due in the spring.
My noble friend Lord Lansley talked about the definition of the starter home. Clause 2 talks about the criterion for a starter home being a new dwelling available to qualifying first-time buyers aged under 40. We will specify more criteria in the regulations. It is sold at a discount of at least 20% of market value. It is sold for less than £250,000 outside London and £450,000 within Greater London. It is subject to sale and letting restrictions to be specified in the regulations and we will consult.
Lord Lansley
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister but, as I expressly said in my contribution, I am looking forward to debating the definition of a starter home in Clause 2 on a later group.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That is fine. I just thought I would set that out now. I know we will be talking about it later.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about Clause 2(3) and the Secretary of State specifying in the regulations further characteristics of first-time buyers. She asked when the characteristics will be agreed. We have taken a power to specify additional criteria in regulations to provide the Government with some flexibility as to who should be eligible and we intend to consult shortly on what criteria should be applied. This forms part of a wider consultation on the aspects of starter home regulations to be introduced later this year.
Starter homes are a new product and, although we have debated the merits and demerits of them being so prominent, we want to ensure that councils are delivering on the key manifesto commitment. The electorate will expect us to deliver on this commitment, and for this reason we want the starter homes clauses to focus on starter home delivery, as I have pointed out.
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, asked about the impact on other forms of housing. We will be consulting on the starter homes requirement under Clause 4 shortly. I want to reassure noble Lords that councils will still be able to seek other forms of home ownership from new development, as I have previously stated, once this requirement is in place. These clauses do not switch off the abilities of councils, as I have pointed out, to secure other forms of alternative home ownership products, just as previously the affordable housing duty did not switch off other housing home ownership products. We expect them to actively support starter homes, but it does not remove their ability to deliver home ownership products, as I have pointed out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked how people will get mortgages. In January, house prices increased by 2.5% in England and Wales, with annual house price inflation increasing from 6.4% in December to 7.1% recently. The number of mortgage approvals has actually grown by 42% since April 2010. Noble Lords will recall that last week I was asked about the decline in home ownership. Actually, for the first time in seven years, home ownership is in fact increasing, so that probably demonstrates that people are buying and lenders are lending.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about the target for owner occupation. As I stated previously, we want to double the number of first-time buyers within this Parliament.
I will now talk to Amendment 50G, on the monitoring arrangements, and why I think it is unnecessary. We need to ensure that the monitoring arrangements reflect the delivery of starter homes for first-time buyers so that there is a transparency about delivery and that first-time buyers are aware of the measures which have been taken at the local level to deliver on supply. Councils already have to report on market and affordable housing supply through their authority monitoring reports, so I do not think that the amendment would serve any useful purpose.
That is also true of Amendments 53A, 53B and 53ZA, which all seek to amend the compliance direction. The compliance direction is only intended to be used in extremely limited circumstances. To keep its scope narrow by focusing on starter homes provides a clear sanction for the circumstances where the local planning authority is in breach of its starter home duties. We envisage that it would be rarely used but would act as a strong incentive to deliver starter homes in accordance with the provisions in the Bill.
It has been a long debate, and I hope that it has provided—
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I am terribly sorry—I know that it is dinner time and people are anxious to move away from this debate—but my frustration in terms of regulation and consultation is mighty. I do not blame the Minister because this is a blight on many Governments. The noble Baroness mentioned twice the consultation that is about to begin on starter homes. Why start the consultation now? We will finish this Bill, I presume, around Easter, by which time we will not have had the results of the consultation and the Government will not have been able to shape their policies in relation to the consultation. Either it is a sham consultation—that does sometimes happen—or, what is the point?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I understand the frustrations of noble Lords, and I feel a degree of frustration myself. It is not a sham consultation, I can assure the noble Baroness. In terms of regulations generally, I have on numerous occasions elected to provide to the House details on regulations as soon as I could. I hope that the noble Baroness is somewhat reassured by that and that noble Lords will feel free to withdraw their amendments.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I have been listening to this debate with great interest and, in thanking the Minister for her careful reply, I cannot help but think about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Green, about migration flows into this country. We know that 1 million migrants came into Europe last year. It is a huge pressure on this country and other countries in terms of receiving these migrants. There are problems across the world, in the Horn of Africa, and so on.
I have lived and worked in the East End, and I know that for many poor people the major concern they have about foreigners coming into their country is a shortage of housing. When they perceive that foreigners are taking their homes, they get really upset. In this context, I suppose I want reassurance from the Government that they have thought about how they will cater for all those migrants who are desperate refugees from abroad to ensure that there is sufficient housing for poor families from both this country and abroad and that we do not get into a situation of antagonism between the incomers and the nationals, as it were.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
If there is one thing on which we can all agree in this Chamber, it is the need to supply more housing. We are all united on that. Certainly, Governments projecting forward populations is a crucial part of that.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and to the Minister who has done her very best to respond to what she rightly described as a very long debate. One feature of the debate was a pretty wide measure of agreement. We may all have our own particular favourites on the nature of housing tenure, but I do not think that any of us believes that any one form of housing tenure is a solution to the problem—manifestly it is not. The concern is that the Bill, with the references to starter homes coming right at the front of it, gives the impression that it is rather more important in the delivery that actually most of us believe there will be.
We would probably have had just as long a debate, but perhaps a slightly different one, if Clause 1 of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of a housing Bill had simply said, “The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the supply of decent homes in England”. We may well have had a debate on how to do that, but there would have been even more measure of agreement.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his free legal advice, and I note the value of that advice. I am grateful to the Minister, as I said, for listening very carefully to the debate. All I hope—I think on behalf of all of us who have spoken and listened to this—is that it is not just that the Minister has listened but that the Government will hear. Undoubtedly, we will return to this subject at the next stage of this Bill when we will be seeking to find an acceptable—acceptable to your Lordships’ House—change to the current wording of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union: Refugees
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Higgins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the security of the European Union’s border; and what discussions they have had with the Governments of other EU member states about the documentation of those individuals they accept as refugees.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to have secured time for this debate. I originally tabled the Question back in November, so it has been a long while coming to fruition. It is also the case that, in the mean time, we have had a huge influx of refugees coming into the European Union and a very large number indeed of economic migrants coming into the European Union.
We have had two very good debates on this subject previously. In the Moses Room on 18 June there was a Private Member’s debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and there was a debate secured by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the Floor of the House on 9 July. But we have not had a full day’s debate on what must surely be one of the most important—one might say traumatic and historic—issues that we are faced with at present. I hope that the usual channels can, therefore, arrange for a debate.
I have pointed out previously that I have a long-standing interest in the subject. I am the sole survivor of a Cabinet Committee which persuaded the Heath Government to allow the refugees from Idi Amin into the country. I have always felt rather proud of that because it was a great success and they have integrated very well. On other issues, I have pointed out that I was concerned about the way in which the British Government in 1939 appropriated the whole of the assets of the Jewish refugees who had arrived here, and it was many years later that I managed to persuade the then Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett, to seek some form of redress. This has been rather reflected in what has happened in Sweden and Switzerland at present, as far as dealing with refugees’ assets are concerned.
I start straightaway with a point that I have raised with my noble friend before: it is concerned with the idea of communication. It came up yesterday in relation to the problems of children and, in particular, those children who are refugees and are related to people in this country. The question was asked: how do you communicate both with them and with other members of their family? I have suggested previously that the Government should have a “refugee app” or a website that could provide communication with these groups, because most of them have telephones anyway, particularly the youngsters. This was something to which my noble friend appeared sympathetic before, so I hope that we can go ahead and do something as far as that is concerned.
I strongly believe that the attitude taken by the British Government on these problems—in particular, giving very substantial aid to the countries in the Middle East that are suffering from a refugee problem, and allowing in people from those refugee camps rather than accommodating those who have come illegally into the European Union—is right. But it has meant to some extent that we have been a bit detached from the main thrust of European asylum policy, and therefore, perhaps, have not given the leadership of which the European Union is clearly in desperate need, given the way in which the problems have developed. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has certainly been participating in these discussions, but—perhaps also because of our referendum question and so on—we might not have been exercising as much influence as we might have done in other circumstances.
The problem is that the basic Dublin agreement, as far as the admission of asylum seekers into the European Union is concerned, has simply not worked. The idea that they would have to register at the first point of entry, which in many cases has turned out to be Greece, has not resulted in a situation where they have been properly documented and their applications properly serviced. So we have therefore seen this extraordinary flow of refugees from the south of Europe towards the north.
In particular, we have seen the matter that we discussed yesterday in relation to Calais. I was interested in a BBC news story today that stated:
“Many migrants fear they will be required to apply and claim asylum in France and then give up hope of coming to the United Kingdom”.
There is a very interesting passage in the latest report of the European Commission on this issue. It says in the clearest terms that asylum seekers are not entitled to choose where they will seek asylum. The whole question of exactly which country they wish to be in is creating big problems, particularly as far as economic migrants are concerned.
We are in a very different situation from earlier crises, where we had individual asylum seekers or people in particular groups that were being persecuted. The whole scale of this thing is influenced by the fact that they are simply fleeing from the perils of being in countries that are racked by war.
It is also true to say that the groups that have been coming have, to some extent, been remarkably violent. We have seen the scenes in Calais: that was not previously the case, and it has been true as far as those who are seeking to travel north from Greece are concerned. We have seen very violent scenes indeed, so we have some problems that we have not had to cope with on previous occasions.
I come next to a point that I have raised with my noble friend before: the fact that we have problems relating to people crossing into Europe by sea in traffickers’ boats that are very often unseaworthy. We have had a situation where they have been rescued and then landed in Europe. While we must certainly abide by the law of the sea, at the same time I think that this is a real problem, and is quite inconsistent with the view that the Home Secretary has expressed.
I am glad to see, therefore, that there seems to be a significant move on the part of the European Union to protect our borders. That has not been happening up to now. The tendency has been to allow people to come in and then try to sort out the problem. We now see, in essence, as a result of the report of the European Council that just came out on 18 February, that the EU is finally—this gives one some hope for the immediate future—taking the view that the deal with Turkey, which has gradually been established, will enable it to prevent people carrying out the extremely hazardous and very short sea journey, and actually patrol the borders. That has not been happening yet, but the report of the Council’s conclusions on migration on 18 February, and a subsequent one a couple of days later, gives one hope that this is indeed a moment when we can see some serious concern to patrol and re-establish the borders.
It is clearly an impossible situation when we have the Schengen agreement on the one hand and porous external borders at the same time. That is something that we cannot live with, and nor can the European Union. It does seem that, at long last, the EU is doing something on this matter. I very much hope that our Government, despite the inhibitions that I mentioned earlier, will encourage it to do so and ensure that serious action is taken to admit genuine asylum seekers—which most certainly should be our policy, not least as far as two of them are concerned—and at the same time distinguish them very clearly from economic migrants. We ought to take a very different line with them and ensure that they do not obtain entry to this country, to some extent at the expense of the genuine asylum seekers. I therefore hope that the Government will be able to take a very positive attitude to the points that I have made.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for bringing forward this Question for Short Debate. He mentioned that he tabled it some months ago but it is, nevertheless, extremely timely. I agree with a lot of what he said, which might come as some surprise as we are from opposite sides of the Chamber. However, nobody could fail to be moved by the sight of refugees coming from Syria, Iraq and Libya or the sight of people, including children, drowning in the Mediterranean; nor could anybody fail to be moved, at least intellectually, by the sheer numbers of people who are moving. According to the International Organization for Migration, since the start of the year—in two months—129,455 people have arrived in Europe by sea. Some 418 people have died in the sea in the last two months alone.
It is very easy, from this side of the channel, to realise that there is a problem and to talk about it in very much an intellectual way. These people are coming mostly to Greece and to Italy. If you look at a map you will realise that those who will come to the United Kingdom as their first port of call are very few in number. However, the sheer scale of the refugee flows that are affecting Greece is as nothing compared with what is going on in countries such as Jordan and Lebanon. Western Europe has been remarkably unaffected by refugee flows over recent decades. In many ways, the United Kingdom is one of the least-affected countries.
One of my concerns, already flagged up by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is that in many ways the United Kingdom has not demonstrated leadership here. We have not been affected by huge numbers of refugees coming to our borders. We have agreed to take 20,000 Syrians from the camps but we are not on a daily basis accepting coachloads or boatloads of would-be refugees. The lack of leadership and engagement from the United Kingdom is unfortunate.
Perhaps some of that is, as the noble Lord suggested, to do with the fact that the United Kingdom is going through a somewhat existential crisis in our relationship with the European Union. However, perhaps it is more than that. The fact that we are not part of the Schengen area means that in many ways we feel we are protecting our own borders and leave it to other member states to protect their own. However, those borders are porous and there are questions about documents—which comes into the formal Question—and how far those held by people seeking asylum are verifiable. Are they genuine documents? How far is it possible to scrutinise them? That is a hugely important area that affects British security as well as security in the rest of the European Union.
Last week, the Home Secretary talked about the importance of securing European borders but she also made very clear that the United Kingdom still did not see a need to be part of a European coastguard initiative, and that somehow the United Kingdom still feels that we are separate from that. Does the Minister not think that it would be beneficial for the United Kingdom to be more engaged, supporting countries such as Greece to man European borders? Those borders are not simply ones for other countries. They affect the security of the whole continent.
The nature of the Schengen area may be one that we have decided is not for the United Kingdom but there is always the danger that people who come through the European Union from porous borders are not properly documented. They will then be able to come through other channels to the United Kingdom. Are we sure that we are able to scrutinise and filter out everybody who should not be here because they are coming for illegal terrorist purposes? How are we also scrutinising to find out whether people are genuine asylum seekers whom we should welcome, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested? How far are we working with European partners to say, “Some of these people should not be coming”, even with the very generous opportunities offered by Angela Merkel in Germany who said, “Any Syrian refugees can come”? Many people arrived in Germany legally because they were invited—or at least they appeared to be legal. If they came from countries other than Syria and were not fleeing war they do not have a genuine right to be here. How is that verified?
Does the Minister not think it would be beneficial for the United Kingdom to be part of the European Union? Would it not be beneficial for us to work more closely with our European partners to ensure that we focus on working effectively to facilitate the reception of genuine asylum seekers and to keep out those who should not be here? Would it not be beneficial to the United Kingdom in our role in the European Union to demonstrate solidarity with those countries that suffer from huge migration flows, particularly Greece, by offering to take more people?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, as we begin a four-month marathon debate on whether Britain should remain a member of the EU, it is good that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, enables us to discuss, however briefly, another major challenge facing the EU—all the more so since the EU’s handling of this problem and the outcome of the migration crisis will profoundly affect this country whether we are inside the European Union or not. The idea that we can just pull up a drawbridge and indulge in some enjoyable schadenfreude at the expense of our European partners is as misguided as when some said we could comfortably sit out the eurozone crisis and economic and financial crisis without them affecting us in the slightest way.
No one could say that the EU has so far covered itself with glory when faced with the migration crisis, even if it was none of its own doing and though it is a kind of backhanded compliment to the stability and prosperity that the EU has brought to our continent. The EU is managing—let us face it—no worse than the United States, faced with a quite different immigration challenge. Mistakes have been made. Too little effort and too few resources have been put into stemming the flood at source in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Unilateral actions taken by countries such as Hungary and Austria are, whether or not they are in conformity with EU rules, surely in breach of their obligations under the UN refugee convention. A misguided—in my view—attempt to impose mandatory quotas of refugees on the members of Schengen is almost certainly unenforceable. There has been a failure by some member states—Greece and Italy in particular—to fulfil their obligations under the Dublin convention to document and process new arrivals, separating out genuine refugees and asylum seekers from illegal economic migrants, returning the latter to their countries of origin.
One action I would not criticise is the decision by the German Chancellor, taken after the immigration surge began, to offer asylum to all genuine refugees. I am saddened when I hear that act of humane generosity described as if it triggered the surge in the first place, when in fact the surge was taking place and it was in response to it that she spoke as she did. The Chancellor now faces plenty of domestic criticism, much of it from people with whom no respectable politician in this country would share a platform, so let us not add to it.
Amid all the confusion and tensions, one can see some of the elements of a better overall approach beginning to emerge. An agreement with Turkey to stem the flow of immigrants and clamp down on traffickers is absolutely vital and I believe there is a meeting on that later this week. NATO assistance in patrolling the maritime borders between Greece and Turkey, and those between Libya and Italy, is another element. There is the establishment of processing centres within the countries of first arrival where proper documentation can be carried out and where economic migrants can be separated from genuine refugees and the former returned to their countries of origin. There is much greater help given to countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to harbour refugees close to their homes while offering them better health and education services and a chance of employment. Here, our own Government’s response has been exemplary. They deserve praise for it, even if I reiterate that our willingness to take in refugees has been, in the words of the most reverend Primate, rather thin.
Clearly, some member states—Greece in particular—and some other countries outside the EU will need substantial help in carrying out these policies. I hope the UK will be generous in providing finance and material support in that respect, and not just sit like Pontius Pilate washing our hands. I say this because, to return to my original theme, we have plenty at stake in all this. We may not be a member of Schengen but if that imaginative border-free system were to collapse irretrievably our own trade with and ability to travel around the European Union would suffer, as would the benefits our citizens enjoy when working or on holiday elsewhere in the EU. It is in our interest that any temporary suspension of Schengen, such as a number of member states have quite reasonably resorted to in the heat of the crisis, should remain just that—temporary. The policies being gradually shaped by the Schengen members should receive our full support, even if we are not going to apply them ourselves in all respects.
If the Minister agrees with that analysis, I hope he will give a little bit more detail about the support the Government might be ready to give when this matter is next discussed at the European level: no doubt when the Prime Minister goes to the next meeting of the European Council in two and a half weeks’ time.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Higgins for initiating this important debate. I will make a few short points and I appreciate that some may echo sentiments already raised by other noble Lords. I intend to concentrate on documentation for refugees coming into the UK. As all sides of the House would agree, the fundamental responsibility of government is to ensure that however a person finds themselves here—as a refugee or otherwise—they do not pose a threat to the safety of any member of the British public. To know who visitors are is key and, therefore, so is documentation.
However, in the case of refugees, we know that documentation is often unintentionally—or, indeed, intentionally—lost. Understandably, many refugees deliberately do not travel with any papers for fear of documents being discovered and of being sent back to their country of origin. For others, documents are simply lost or have been confiscated; and for some, documents are present but counterfeit. How many people try to enter our borders each year without any official paperwork? What measures do the Government have in place to identify genuine refugees in a situation where no official papers are present or where false documents are presented? Furthermore, what measures are being taken to identify people who are misusing the refugee crisis, such as people traffickers or those with criminal or terrorist intentions? For example, have estimations been made of the number of people who may be trafficked each year to the UK under the guise of migration or being refugees, bearing in mind that the perpetrators of this hideous activity, who often travel with those being trafficked, will undoubtedly be taking advantage of the current migration and refugee patterns throughout Europe?
Having a robust plan in place to identify people is especially important in relation to vulnerable travellers, such as children. We know from Home Office figures that over 3,000 unaccompanied children under 18 years of age sought asylum in 2015, about 50 of whom were under 14. How many of those children did not have documents, and how many were travelling with counterfeit identification when they arrived? What is being done to monitor these children and to keep them protected from abuse after they have been granted asylum in the UK?
Great Britain exists to support and protect those who contribute to making it so great. Those who wish to prosper through criminal activity or those who wish to do us harm should never be allowed in. Refugees rely on us, often as a matter of life or death, and we need all the resources possible to be directed to the people who need them most of all. We must therefore ensure that thorough procedures are in place to identify the most vulnerable, as well as those who are misusing the system, so that a clear distinction can be made between the two. I know this is an area that the Government take extremely seriously, and that much work has been done. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised an issue of pressing concern which continues to baffle all of us on both sides of the EU divide. The number of migrants who are up against internal EU barriers is causing distress to all of us: the scenes in the Aegean and on the Greek-Macedonian border being among the most critical. As we speak, some 8,000 are still stuck at Idomeni, where the Greek army and the ICRC are doing their best to cope. No one is in doubt that the rules governing external borders need to change: what escapes us is the question of whether they can change and whether the European Council has the muscle to make any changes at all. Of course, the advocates of Brexit say with some glee that this is the end of Europe as we know it. One newspaper even says the EU itself has only a few days to go. More sensible people are determined that the Commission will be forced to find solutions, although inevitably they will have to be partial and specific to each successive crisis.
Schengen is now at risk. A liberal, humanitarian principle that has enabled millions to travel daily between frontiers has been seriously challenged, and may possibly be ended, by mass migration. Humpty Dumpty has had a great fall and who will put him back together again? The Commission is bending over backwards to control the uncontrollable and its website on Schengen makes painful reading—I shall not repeat it. Eurosceptics should renounce any feelings of schadenfreude because they could never have anticipated a crisis on this scale.
Individual states are, legitimately it seems, making their own national decisions. As my noble friend Lord Hannay said, the Commission has legalised the temporary reintroduction of border controls in seven countries, trying to imply that these are only an interim measure: we hope they will be. This means that member states will gradually fall in line with the UK, which has long decided to opt out. We can imagine that the Minister will have no difficulty with the first part of the question. Dublin is fast becoming a shambles and border security is becoming a national concern. What happens next and how will the EU be able to set up alternatives?
The key problem remains the number of Syrians entering Greece by sea. NATO continues to make a modest contribution—we wish it were more—by deterring and returning migrants, but its fleet needs to be increased significantly if it is to help. The real pressure occurs on the borders of all the Balkan states up to Austria, which has decided to take the law into its own hands. The UK should intervene and set an example by supporting those neighbouring states. We have a good record on enlargement, as has been demonstrated in our own EU Select Committee reports, and we are supporting a number of specific aid programmes, such as EULEX in Kosovo, as well as EU-wide projects such as FRONTEX and Europol, which have a well-developed database.
I know that, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has reminded us, we are concerned about our own security, but why can we not take more of an initiative on the security of the EU’s external border? Will the Government co-operate with the EU action plan on migrant smuggling? As an island, the UK is also a European leader on border control. We have experience at many ports of entry by air, sea and road, and the Home Office or DfID could be exporting knowledge by training more police and immigration officers. Systematic checks against databases are difficult given the current scale of migration and they will be impossible in hotspots without the necessary infrastructure. This is much more than can be provided by UNHCR and the other relief agencies which are having to cope nobly with instant emergencies around that region. Are we providing enough—or any—technological back-up for these operations? Can we be associated with the new European border and coastguard agency? Should we not be belatedly signing up to the 2005 Prüm treaty on data sharing? As my noble friend Lord Hannay said, we are, after all, a member state, whether or not we belong to Schengen.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, while our media give a powerful picture of impending crisis, we have yet to see examples of the UK carrying out our own neighbourhood policy as we should. Without in any way supporting greater federal union, I am with those who would like to see the UK much more actively joining the EU decision-making process on migration, not only with processing applications but with accepting more refugees, especially unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable people who are already in Europe—not those in Turkey.
Finally, is the Minister concerned that the new identification measures announced on 18 February by Austria and four neighbouring Balkan states could be in breach of international agreements? Restrictions on the right to receive protection, such as sudden border closures and discrimination in immigration controls, and Austria’s imposition of daily quotas are already incompatible with the refugee convention. Receiving refugees is something we are good at, so let us send a message of solidarity to Mrs Merkel and support her in the field and not from the touch line.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I also offer warm thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for initiating this vital debate and for his excellent speech. The European Commission has put forward a very comprehensive package of measures on borders and migration. As the Dutch Migration Minister who chaired last week’s Justice and Home Affairs Council said:
“We can solve this crisis if all member states are ready to work together, as well as work with the countries on the Western Balkan route and with Turkey”.
Unfortunately, the member states have behaved badly; they have been reactive and disorganised and, at worst, played the blame game. Greece, as well as Germany, has a more than legitimate grievance about not being invited to the meeting that Austria hosted recently. Yesterday we saw terrible scenes of tear gas being fired at migrants on the Macedonian border. The problem is not the lack of available laws, tools or even money—€10 billion has made available from the EU budget so far—but a lack of political will and solidarity. It is obvious that we need to do a number of things, of which the following is a non-exhaustive list of six.
The EU’s external border must be strengthened. It is welcome that the Council is urgently examining the Commission’s proposal for a European border and coastguard agency, which I assume that the UK cannot be associated with. We must also have effective rescue at sea. FRONTEX operations last year rescued 250,000 people and NATO assistance is also very welcome.
We need a much greater push to put smugglers and traffickers out of business and into jail if at all possible. I believe there are 11,000 suspects on Europol’s database. Does the Minister have any data on what has happened to those who have been apprehended? I believe 900 people have been apprehended by FRONTEX working with Europol and Eurojust.
The EU must also ensure that security threats from potential terrorists are combated by stopping them slipping in as migrants. The Council has agreed a common position on the proposal for checks against databases at external borders but, again, as it is a Schengen project, I assume the UK cannot take part. Will the UK use the Interpol database and its access for policing purposes to the Schengen information system to align our practices on Schengen and seek maximum co-operation with the Schengen zone on this checking process?
I note that the Home Secretary said last week, in a Written Statement that she would,
“push for Schengen and non-Schengen states to be able to exchange immigration information”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/16; col. 11WS]
As the UK does not have access to the immigration side of the Schengen information system, will the Minister explain what such an exchange might consist of?
We must secure safe and legal routes for refugees and asylum seekers to reach Europe. Of course direct resettlement from the region is important, but there must also be opportunities for spontaneous arrivals to come legally in pursuit of a place of safety. We have constructed such barriers with carriers’ liability that that is almost impossible.
Those who arrive on our shores must be processed and registered efficiently. Action is at last happening to have so-called hotspots in Italy and Greece up and running, though it is too slow. Decisions on who needs protection must be made promptly so that they can work and integrate as speedily as possible, and those who do not have legitimate claims to stay must be returned. This is essential to preserve the integrity of the refugee system and public support for it.
I recognise that the Government are offering practical assistance to help with the registering and fingerprinting of migrants in Greece and Italy. Will the Minister tell us exactly what our help consists of—for instance, the number of experts that we have loaned?
It is vital that the internal Schengen arrangements be preserved. These benefit UK citizens and businesses, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, as well as those of other EU countries. The reimposition of internal controls will, as the Commission warned, set back what is already a very slow eurozone recovery through obstructing the single market.
One of the worst features of the current disarray is that who gets through to safety is rather a lottery; it is often young and able-bodied men rather than vulnerable women, children, the elderly, the sick or the disabled. I am of course not saying that those men do not deserve protection—many of them do—but there is a worrying survival of the fittest dimension to it all.
I also appreciate the German Chancellor’s unilateral moves last summer, born of despair at the prospect of getting a co-ordinated response. It is none the less true, however, that some confusion was created down the chain, not least in switching the Dublin regulation on and off. Can the Minister give us some clue or prediction about what will happen to the Dublin regulation?
The Home Secretary also said last week that,
“if the EU is to avoid a repeat of last year, we must take decisive action now”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/16; col. 12WS]
Will the Minister tell us what this Government are proposing to do to make sure that the UK is fully engaged in, committed to and participating in solutions to this migration challenge? We know about and appreciate the resettlement programme and the financial assistance being given to the region, but the UK should take part in and not stand aside from the sharing of responsibility for those who have reached Europe. I say this with full recognition of our aid contributions, the resettlement programme, and the fact that we have a rising population, which some member states do not. We need a strong and effective EU in the matter of migration and security, and any Eurosceptic who thinks a Europe in disarray on this issue is good news for their cause needs to examine both their head and their conscience.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for securing this debate. Obviously, it is timely in the light of the current situation both on the Macedonian border with Greece and at our end of Europe in Calais and Dunkirk.
In its very recent report on a more effective EU foreign and security strategy, the European Union Committee said:
“Migrant and refugee inflows are likely to remain a long-term challenge for the Union. So far, Member States have not agreed a collective response to this issue at the EU level. The fractious and polarised debates have battered the reputation of the EU and resulted in a muted response to a pressing security and humanitarian crisis. These internal divisions are likely to undermine Member States’ ability to achieve unity on foreign policy issues”.
The issues covered by this debate are ones that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has raised on a number of occasions before. Indeed, he did so last month when he asked in a Written Question whether,
“EU member states within the Schengen area are issuing a standard form of passport or other document to those they accept as asylum seekers or whether individual countries decide on the format to use”.
I think that the Answer the noble Lord received was that EU member states were actually issuing,
“a refugee status travel document, in the form set out in the Schedule to the Geneva Convention”,
rather than that that was what member states ought to be doing but whether they all were was another matter. Perhaps the Minister could clarify this point in his reply.
The European Council meeting last month stated that the objective of the EU had to be,
“to rapidly stem the flows, protect our external borders, reduce illegal migration and safeguard the integrity of the Schengen area”.
With that last point in mind, the European Council said that there was a need to,
“get back to a situation where all Members of the Schengen Area fully apply the Schengen Borders Code and refuse entry at external borders to third-country nationals who do not satisfy the entry conditions or who have not made an asylum application despite having had the opportunity to do so”.
Reference has already been made in this debate to the intentions of an EU agreement with Turkey.
The European Council expressed the view that,
“with the help of the EU, the setting up and functioning of hotspots”,
in front-line member states to ensure effective reception and registration processes was,
“gradually improving as regards identification, registration, fingerprinting and security checks on persons and travel documents”,
although much remained to be done. What remained to be done included,
“to fully implement the relocation process, to stem secondary flows of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers and to provide the significant reception facilities needed to accommodate migrants under humane conditions while their situation is being clarified”.
The Council reiterated, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said:
“Asylum seekers do not have the right to choose the Member State in which they seek asylum”.
According to the third quarterly report for last year from the Frontex Risk Analysis Network, that quarter saw the highest ever reported numbers of illegal border crossings since data collection began in 2007, with the figure being not far short of 620,000. Most illegal border crossings—almost 320,000—were reported on the eastern Mediterranean route, with almost all accounted-for detections being on the eastern Aegean islands. Around 70% of the irregular migrants on this route claimed to be of Syrian nationality, with some 17% saying they were of Afghan nationality.
In the third quarter of 2015, the number of detected undocumented Syrian nationals within the EU, at almost 90,000, more than tripled compared to the previous quarter, and there were significant increases in the number of illegal stayers from Bangladesh, Iran and Iraq. Also during the third quarter of last year, EU member states reported more than 405,000 asylum applications—an almost 150% increase on the same period in 2014. Almost two-thirds submitted their application in the top three countries—Germany, Hungary and Sweden—although apparently most asylum seekers in Hungary absconded to apply for asylum in another country. The figures also showed that Syrians were the top-ranking asylum nationality in the EU Schengen area, with more than 137,000 applications in the third quarter of last year, followed by Afghan, Iraqi and Albanian nationals.
As a result of the increasing number of migrants arriving in the EU, several Schengen member states have introduced or reintroduced temporary border controls at their borders with other Schengen member states. At the end of last year the European Commission proposed establishing a European border and coast guard, with a view to ensuring a strong, shared management of external borders. The Commission also proposed to introduce systematic checks against relevant databases for all people entering or exiting the Schengen area.
The subject matter of this debate refers to an assessment of the security of the European Union’s borders. It is clear that the EU’s borders are not secure and probably cannot be secure in the face of the large-scale migration arising mainly from the current and continuing conflicts in the Middle East. However, our own borders are not secure either in the sense that we do not have much control over the numbers of people coming to this country. The lack of response from the Government when asked to give even an estimate of the level of net migration for this year and next year is eloquent testimony to that lack of control.
At times there also appears to be a certain lack of enthusiasm on the Government’s part for engaging with EU member states, particularly on migration and border control issues. Interestingly, the subject matter of this debate also asks what discussions the Government have had with the Governments of other EU member states about the documentation of those individuals they accept as refugees. Of course, that is a question to which only the Minister can really provide a response. Relevant and appropriate though that question is, and relevant and appropriate though the measures the EU wants to take to try to secure its borders may be, the only real solution to the present situation is to address the causes of the large-scale migration currently taking place—and that will require a mutual determination to do so on the part of the major powers, including the EU, which currently seems to be lacking.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Higgins for securing this debate. He may have waited a little time for it come up, but the usual channels, with impeccable timing, have brought it to our attention today. The debate that we have had around these issues has been of great value, and I hope to add to it with some responses to the legitimate questions that have been raised.
The UK Government recognise the importance of this issue and are committed to supporting our European partners to ensure the full and proper management of the EU’s external border, reduce the impact of illegal migration and deter people from risking their lives on perilous journeys, as well as to increase security at the border. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, reminded us of the scale of the human loss. Last year it was 3,771 lives, and she used the figure so far for this year of 418, which may be more up to date than the 410 which I have in the briefing I received this morning. The scale is quite shocking.
It is important to clarify that although the UK is not part of Schengen or a member of FRONTEX, we want to support the operational work of the proposed EU border agency, in the same way that we currently support FRONTEX operations. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Hannay, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Smith, asked whether we were standing aside and how we were engaging with our European partners.
If the House will bear with me for 30 seconds, I will just point out that this is of course the dominant issue on the European agenda—in fact on the international agenda—at present. The British Government were represented at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 25 and 26 January, at an informal strategic committee on immigration, frontiers and asylum in Europe on 15 and 16 January, and at the European Council on 18 and 19 February. This week, we have the France-UK summit on Thursday. The Prime Minister and the leaders of the French Government, along with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, will be there in Amiens. Next week, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned, is the EU-Turkey summit, to move that agenda forward. There is the Justice and Home Affairs Council the week after and then the European Council the week after that. At the end of the month, there is the UNHCR meeting on Syrian refugees.
That is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but I read it out to stress that, from my experience of working in the Home Office, my colleagues in the department are actively engaged in this on a daily basis. We totally endorse and accept the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Rosser, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and indeed my noble friend Lord Higgins himself that there cannot be an ounce of schadenfreude —the term I think the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, used—about what is happening there. I was reminded as they were talking of the aphorism that if you do not visit your problem neighbourhoods, then your problem neighbourhoods will visit you. That works in a domestic setting and certainly in an international one.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, invited us to say, we are focused not just on what is happening but on dealing with the causes. That was one of the reasons for the Valletta summit between EU and African partners, which set out a significant agenda for action to respond to and tackle the flows from Africa. It was notable that, in response to that, we have I think seen the principal flows in recent months from the central Mediterranean reduce significantly, to 9,000 arrivals in the first two months of this year. The principal route now is through the Aegean, with 120,565 arrivals.
That link with tackling these issues at source in Africa reminds me to pay tribute to the work that my noble friend Lord Higgins did all those years ago in bringing Ugandan Asians to this country. They have made an immense contribution to it, and we are certainly delighted that we have one of them, our noble friend Lord Popat, on this side. We look forward in years to come to perhaps being joined by one of those Syrians who have been offered sanctuary in this country too.
European Union member states are facing unprecedented pressures on their time. That is why the UK is taking a comprehensive approach to the migrant crisis, intervening at every stage of the migrant journey—at source, in transit, at the EU’s frontier, at our border and in the UK. We want to help build stability in the countries these migrants come from and we are engaging in the largest-ever humanitarian response to a single crisis. At the Syria conference in London on 4 February—which I left off the list I gave earlier—the Prime Minister announced that the UK will more than double its support in response to the Syria crisis, to over £2.3 billion. That is the kind of generosity that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, urged us to have.
To help those in need of genuine protection, the UK is expanding its scheme to resettle vulnerable Syrians from the region. We have exceeded our commitment to resettle 1,000 Syrian refugees before Christmas, and expect to resettle up to the full commitment of 20,000 Syrians by 2020.
In relation to the external border, the UK is playing a part in the maritime operations. Royal Navy operations in the Mediterranean have so far saved 12,500 lives and it is currently involved in NATO activities in the Aegean. This is not just a Syrian crisis; many nationalities are trying to come to the EU. As my noble friend Lord Smith urged, the EU needs to be firm with those who do not need protection, pose a security risk or refuse to co-operate with the asylum process.
With regard to the Government’s approach to European Commission initiatives, the Government fully support the Commission’s hotspots proposal, which aims to address these issues at the border. In our view the hotspots can contribute to better management of the EU’s external border by securing the rapid return of those without a legitimate asylum claim. It is important that we do not focus exclusively on facilitating relocation but fulfil this wider security objective. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to the fact that these hotspots had taken too long to set up, and we concur with that. At the meetings I have mentioned we always urge our colleagues to work faster, in addition to providing additional support. We have announced £65 million of help for our European colleagues in this situation, a significant proportion of which—£45 million I think—is to go to Greece.
A number of Lords referred to the key issue of organised crime, which is a staggering problem. Europol last week estimated that of those arriving in the European Union in search of asylum 90% had paid a criminal gang to get here. That gives us an idea of the scale of the problem. Since last year, UK law enforcement has disrupted more than 170 organised crime groups involved in organised immigration crime. Since April 2015 immigration enforcement has disrupted 94 organised crime groups involved in organising immigration crime, 12 of which involved people smuggling. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked for an update on that. These cases are currently being processed through the courts. To give one example, however, one group that was disrupted in December involved 23 people from Sweden, Austria, the UK and Greece, and was responsible for bringing 100 migrants a day into Greece. This group had made an estimated €10 million in the process. These are significant issues.
I can reassure, I hope, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on some of the points he raised about the Prüm issues, which we have opted into. We are working with our colleagues in communicating information about the second-generation Schengen information system, which we are part of, the European arrest warrant framework, which we are part of, Europol, with which we work, and the European criminal record and information service, which is part of that. We want those data to be collected as people arrive in those hotspots, so that the data can be shared with us through the Dublin process. We can then ensure that our borders are secure. That is also a reason why we want to take more people from the region. As my noble friend Lord Smith said, when people come here they have often genuinely lost their documents in their struggle to get here, and sometimes they have chosen to destroy them to avoid their identification. That poses a particular risk. That is one reason why we want to take more people from the region, because there, through the UNHCR or the International Organisation on Migration, we can identify them, and then we have an additional layer of verification through the Home Office systems before someone qualifies for membership in the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme.
My noble friend Lord Higgins also referred to Turkey. The UK Government have committed £250 million to securing that crucial southern border to the region to tackle that issue. The House will be updated on progress on that.
Time is running out on this debate, but I want to communicate one message. First, the UK Government are absolutely committed to working with our European partners to resolve this issue. This is not a UK problem, it is a European problem—in fact, an international, worldwide humanitarian problem—and we need to work together. That is happening daily. Secondly, we are not being complacent but putting resources behind that through the European Asylum Support Office, hotspots and finance, and bringing people to the UK from the region, to provide that safe alternative route to undertaking the perilous journey that we want them to avoid.
I again thank my noble friend Lord Higgins for securing this debate and all those who contributed.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, the whole House will have benefited from the excellent documentation that the Library has produced. I think it will be of wider interest than just to those who have taken part. I thank all those who spoke for their interesting contributions, particularly my noble friend. I do not doubt that this is a subject to which we will return soon, and I hope that the usual channels can make suitable time available.
Housing and Planning Bill
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments looks at starter homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will be aware that while this is a flagship policy of the Government, considerable reservations have been raised both inside and outside Parliament about the whole scheme. That was very evident in our previous debate.
We are in the midst of a housing crisis and these proposals on their own do not go any way to solving the crisis. They may even make things worse as funding is diverted from other programmes to support this one. That is one of the failures of the Bill; it does not do enough to support other housing tenures. The starter homes product is unaffordable to many people in most areas. At Second Reading, I pointed out that you could need an income of up to £77,000 per annum in London to afford one of these homes.
Although the Minister will not accept the point about the price cap being seen as a price guide, I certainly share the concerns of Mr Nick Hurd, the Conservative Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, when he drew that conclusion when the other place debated this Bill. The proposals actually make things worse by diverting funding from other schemes and allowing starter homes to replace low-cost rented homes within planning obligations, which will reduce the supply of housing available to those on low or modest incomes. That local authorities are able to grant planning permission only for certain residential developments, as specified requirements relating to starter homes are met, is of considerable concern also. Depending on what the regulations say, this could have a very damaging effect on the supply of other tenures of social and affordable housing.
We heard a lot about localism in the last Parliament, just as we did about the big society, but it has gone the same way and is rarely mentioned from the Government’s Dispatch Box these days. My understanding of localism is that it surely must be right for local authorities to be able to utilise their understanding of local housing markets to reach agreements with developers to ensure that planning obligations are met that deliver local housing need as part of a wider duty to ensure that there is a wide range of housing tenures to meet housing needs.
We have heard that there could be a loss of up to 71 affordable homes of every tenure for every 100 starter homes. The Government, of course, talk of working in partnership with local authorities, but the worry is that the Secretary of State will use extensive powers of direction to override any local development documents identified as incompatible with starter home duties. Can the Minister comment on how the Government will work in partnership with local authorities to deliver this policy and also satisfy other housing needs and not just ride roughshod over genuine concerns and a desire to deliver housing tenures that meet identified local housing needs? Also, by exempting starter homes from the community infrastructure levy, the policy reduces the scope of local authorities to secure the necessary contributions towards funding infrastructure.
The first amendment in this group is Amendment 37 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. It adds the words,
“new homes across all tenures”,
into Clause 1. It is fairly straightforward and takes account of the point that I have made that promoting one particular type of tenure at the expense of other types, regardless of local need, is not a sensible policy. The amendment would put in the Bill a more sensible statement with respect to the starter homes programme and other housing tenures.
Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and other noble Lords, is one that I am very supportive of. It would make clear in the Bill the duty of the local planning authority in relation to starter homes and other tenures. Amendment 48 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham qualifies the duty of the planning authority to promote starter homes where that would prevent other types of affordable housing being built. This is important, as the local authority would have a better understanding than the Secretary of State of the local housing need in a particular area.
Amendment 48A would require the local planning authority to take proper account of housing need and viability for particular groups of people—those of pensionable age, below average income and those in need of a statutory duty to house. The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would put in the Bill a requirement for an adequate supply of affordable homes for key workers and families requiring temporary accommodation from the local housing authority. There are other amendments in this group, which will be spoken to by the noble Lords who have tabled them. I am supportive of all the amendments. Their aim is to ensure that proper account is taken of local housing need in considering the building of starter homes. I am sure that this will be an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 37, to which my name is attached. I declare at the outset that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I shall also speak to Amendment 47 and, in practice, several others.
The overriding concern in this group of amendments is that the Bill must be about renting as well as home ownership. That is why we have two separate groups—the last group looking at ownership and this one looking at all tenures. The principle is very simple. Renting must still be supported for lower-income households where it is not possible for them to buy their own property. I remind the House that there are some 1.3 million people on social housing waiting lists in this country. So I hope that the Minister will understand and accept that the Bill cannot just be about starter homes for owner occupation but must include social renting.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, in the context of this group of amendments I should also declare my interest as a vice-president and the immediate past president of the Local Government Association. I shall speak to Amendments 48A, 48F, 50B and 50D. All these amendments are about the absolute priority being given to 20% discounted starter homes even though such housing may not be addressing, and therefore should not be replacing, the accommodation which an objective assessment by the local authority has demonstrated that an area needs.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework gives local planning authorities the job of preparing a strategic housing market assessment. This is intended to ensure that their local plan is based on clear evidence and will meet the needs for different kinds of housing in a mix that takes on board demographic factors and market trends, is reflected in the size, tenure and range of homes in particular locations and includes the requisite measures for meeting affordable housing need. This NPPF framework, devised after much consultation, replaced a plethora of planning guidance and is not, course, repealed by this Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Shipley, wondered whether the NPPF would now be overturned, and the Minister may like to confirm, as I have been reassured, that this planning policy framework remains firmly in place.
This means that there is now a conflict between the NPPF guidance and the new requirement for a proportion of starter homes to be given the highest priority in future local plans. The new stipulation in the Bill cuts right across the NPPF guidance. In effect, it says, “Thank you, local authority, for bringing together all the evidence on local housing need and demand as the Government have asked of you. You are now to set this aside and make way for our new initiative that may or may not meet the objectively assessed housing requirements you have set out. In particular, if the evidence demonstrates a priority need for affordable housing for rent or shared ownership, you should ignore that. Instead, wholly or partially in place of using Section 106 agreements to secure those affordable homes, you should require housebuilders and housing associations to build the 20% discounted starter homes which we in Westminster or Whitehall have decided are the real requirement for your area”.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, quotes colleagues who said that there are 100 local housing markets, each of which has its own special needs. For one illustration I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in drawing on the excellent example of Bristol City Council to illustrate my point. Bristol, working with South Gloucestershire and North Somerset councils, published its Wider Bristol HMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment, which shows the need for 85,000 new homes over the next 20 years. Of these 29,000, about 35% are required for people who will need affordable housing as currently defined, in a ratio of 80% affordable rented and 20% shared ownership. However, government diktat will now stipulate that a large proportion—perhaps 70%, if the figures the noble Lord, Lord Horam, mentioned, are correct—will be replaced in future by the need to build new starter homes. This is the downside of the Bill: the potential loss of desperately needed new homes for people who cannot get a starter home.
Some of those who would have been helped under the current arrangements have incomes high enough to purchase a starter home. These young buyers will be fine. Sadly, however, there are not many of them. Savills, the property agents with the best research skills, has done the sums with the LGA. To quote again what must become the statistic of the day, discounted starter homes will not be affordable to any of those assessed as needing affordable housing in 67% of local authority areas. Therefore, in 220 council areas, none of those who could have benefited under the present system of securing a proportion of affordable rented or shared ownership housing through planning agreements would be helped in the future under the starter homes scheme. Of the remaining 100 or so council areas, in 80 cases less than 10% of those needing affordable housing could be helped by the starter homes initiative—they just could not afford to buy even with the discount. Therefore, starter homes cater only very rarely for the same people as those whom the local authority planned to assist through its published planning authorities. When placing this cuckoo in the nest, displacing the housing needed by those on lower incomes, surely the Government should support councils who have analysed their local housing requirements and markets and yes, include provision for starter homes, but only where that clearly accords with the very varied local demands.
In considering an amendment I moved earlier today which sought government support for a national scheme to help vulnerable tenants, the Minister said that local authorities were better placed than central government to introduce such schemes. In that case a very modest and inexpensive guaranteed national scheme for tenants was at stake. In the case of starter homes, the national scheme—to be implemented in every locality in the country—is in every way a far more intrusive and expensive arrangement. Where now are the arguments for local discretion?
Different groups are mentioned in each of these amendments, and all of them need to be taken into account before they are set aside to make way for the first-time starter home buyers: those over pension age, those on below-average incomes, and of course, those whom councils have a statutory duty to help because they are homeless. There is also supported, specialist housing and housing for people with disabilities. Each group deserves a lengthy defence, which I do not have the time to set out tonight. However, perhaps I can say something about one of these groups, which will not be helped at all by the starter homes initiative. This is older people, covered by Amendment 50D, for whom retirement housing, housing with care, downsizer homes and other forms of age-exclusive provision can be made. If starter homes were simply to take the place of other groups who are in housing need, this would be among the worst tragedies. Here the cuckoo in the nest is displacing not only the other youngsters but their parents as well.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I shall seek to redress the balance in this debate by briefly making a contribution in support of the thrust of government policy in Chapter 1. I do not think the Bill is perfect, but I do think what the Government are seeking to do in this chapter is right.
Basically, what we are trying to do is move the dial of housing policy away from renting towards home ownership. We are not moving the dial nearly as far as some noble Lords have suggested, in that there remains a substantial commitment to investment in social housing for rent. I know the Government remain deeply committed to something the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned earlier—getting long-term institutional funds into the private rented sector.
I do think it is right to move the dial, which is what we do in Chapter 1. I think there are four reasons for this. First, it is what we said in the manifesto we would do. Secondly, it is what people want. Thirdly, it enables the Government to get more housing for a given amount of public investment. Fourthly, it has the potential to help, not hinder, those who are on the social housing list.
In the manifesto, we could not have been clearer about what we wanted to do. There is a whole chapter entitled “Helping you to buy a home of your own”, with a commitment to,
“build more homes that people can afford, including 200,000 new starter homes … double the number of first-time buyers compared to the last five years – helping one million more people to own their own home”.
In delivering that commitment, it is the judgment of the Government that they need primary legislation in order to deliver what they promised. I have heard nothing that contradicts that belief.
Secondly, and perhaps related to the first, it is actually what people want. We heard from my noble friend the Minister that, I think, 86% would prefer to be home owners. The majority of those who are privately renting would like to be home owners. All parties in this House have accepted that it is a legitimate pursuit of public policy to promote home ownership. We all accept the right to buy for council house tenants. There is promotion through the inheritance tax system to promote home ownership. This is another step in the direction, which has been sanctioned by all parties for some time, of promoting home ownership.
Thirdly, it has the potential to provide more houses for a given amount of public money at a time of public expenditure constraint. In the 1980s, we switched resources from the local authorities to the housing associations, because if we let the local authorities borrow it scored against the PSBR, but if we let the housing associations borrow it did not. As a result, there was a substantial increase in output. The nudge of the dial enables more houses to be built for a given amount of public pounds. I was looking at my copy of Inside Housing, which has a paragraph headed “HCA confirms tenure change”, which says:
“Chichester Council was originally expecting 30% affordable housing in its Section 106 agreement for the planned 160-home Lower Graylingwell site in Chichester. This has now been changed to 50% Starter Homes, which are considered affordable by government, meaning 80 will be built in place of 48 affordable homes”.
I think we all agree that we need to increase the output of housing. One of the consequences of this policy is that that can happen.
Finally, it has the potential to help, not hinder, those on the waiting list. I respectfully disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, which was that houses for sale and social renting meet two different markets. I do not think that that is the case at all. I think that there is a group in the middle who would like to be home owners but cannot and who are therefore in the social housing queue. This can benefit those for whom there is no alternative but social housing because it removes from the queue those who could afford home ownership with a little bit of help from the Government but who otherwise will remain in the queue, possibly ahead of people in greater need.
My only comment is that I would like to see the starter homes initiative initially targeted on existing social tenants and housing association tenants who, for whatever reason, do not have the right to buy—they might not have been there for 10 years—so that the initiative would enable a social tenancy by moving somebody out. Alternatively, the starter homes initiative could be targeted at those on the waiting list so that they are removed from it, enabling others to move ahead.
Although, as I said, the Bill is not perfect—I may have some doubts to express at later stages—it is in the right direction. It is delivering what we said and it deserves support.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I will speak specifically to Amendments 47 and 48C. I will not be anything like as eloquent as the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I will do my best.
I believe that the Government’s concentration on starter homes to the exclusion of other tenures is extremely damaging to the housing market and to the aspirations of those looking for a home of any sort. There are those, as we have heard, who will never be able to afford or be eligible for the Government’s starter home programme. There are those who struggle to pay market rents, never mind repayments on a mortgage, and those who will be excluded from renting from a private landlord due to the rents being levied. These people are not to be cast aside as though they are of no importance. Each and every one of them deserves the dignity and security of a decent home in which to live and bring up their children.
Crisis has produced a brief that indicates that starter homes, as we have heard, will primarily help couples without children and on average or above-average salaries. Starter homes will be inaccessible to families on or below the national living wage in all but 2% of council areas. There are only six local authority areas where single people on an average wage or less will be able to afford a starter home. By requiring councils to prioritise starter homes for higher earners, the Bill reduces the scope of local authorities to meet the full range of housing requirements that councils have identified through their planning processes. Thus, the housing needs of low-income groups will go unmet and homelessness is likely to increase.
It is essential that local authorities can retain their flexibility to provide a full range of housing tenures and requirements, including social and affordable housing, to meet the needs of their residents. Starter homes do not do this. The Government should accept this and allow councils to make provision to meet the gap in the market that the starter home policy will create. This is essential to a buoyant housing market in the country and to meet the needs of those at the lower end of the income spectrum.
On Amendment 48C, local authorities do not carry out their planning processes and housing functions in the dark. They do not produce a map and, with a blindfold on, attempt to pin the tail on the donkey, as we did when we were children at birthday parties. No, they have detailed information which they have gathered from officers, residents, parish councils, surveys, census figures, voluntary organisations, developers, Age UK, Citizens Advice and so on. All this assists them to build up a picture of what housing is needed and where. They are able to calculate what is viable in which location and what is not.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to require from on high that a starter home requirement must be met, but if there is no need for starter homes in a particular area but homes of a very different nature, this would seem to be a false requirement. Surely it is for local authorities using the information they have collected through their local planning processes to determine what is needed to prevent homelessness and provide for their residents in any given area. That is what their councillors have been elected to take responsibility for and which they have a burning desire to fulfil. Local authorities must be allowed to do just what it says on the tin—decide locally what is needed for their local communities.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I speak in favour of the amendments in this group—in particular Amendment 48C in my name and Amendments 48A and 48F which I have supported. This group of amendments addresses two issues which concern me most about this section of the Bill. The first is that starter homes will come ahead of and instead of affordable rented accommodation. There is no doubt about that in the way this will play out. Secondly, the Government will dictate to a level I have never seen before the proportion of starter homes that are built, down to individual schemes. This is quite extraordinary.
The Bill gives local authorities a duty to promote starter homes. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, this is a manifesto policy. I acknowledge and accept that point, but it gives them an absolute duty. It does not say, “Promote starter homes as part of your wider housing plans”. Had it said that, we would now be in a different conversation. It simply says, “You will promote starter homes”. It does not say anything about any other tenure. So, yes, the manifesto does say that the Government can ask and indeed require local authorities to promote starter homes, but they should be asked to do it in the context of their primary role, which is to assess housing need and provide for it. That is the first point I really care about in this Bill.
The second point, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has made very clear, is that we have now a well-established process through the NPPF of housing market assessment followed by a local plan and the identification of the necessary land. It is not an easy process. Local authorities go through a lot of heart-searching before they come up with their local plan. Crucially, they think about the local needs in their area before they agree that plan. What we have here is the superimposition of a government view about one tenure or even one product—it is not even a tenure—ahead of other products. It makes much more sense, as the amendment seeks to put forward, that they consider their local plan and have a duty to promote starter homes but that they do it in the context of a plan that they have already developed and are seeking to promote. If starter homes are such a popular and well-regarded product, it would be very surprising if local authorities do not rush to put it in.
I touched earlier on the requirement for starter homes in individual applications. One thing we do know is that we have massively different housing markets in this country. I will say a few words about, and declare my interest in, the London Housing Commission in a minute. Where housing markets can vary literally over two or three miles, never mind between the north and south of the country, having the Secretary of State judging the proportion of housing that needs to be starter homes in each application before that application is approved is asking for trouble. The one thing that we can be sure of is that he will get the number wrong for some part of the country. He may get it wrong for every part of the country, but he will definitely not get it right everywhere. It is in many ways the worst kind of centralism.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I have tabled an amendment in this group. I declare my interest as a landlord and a landowner involved in property development, and I very much associate myself with all the amendments in this group. I particularly associate myself with the words of my noble friends Lord Best and Lord Kerslake.
Shortly after I took my seat in 1998, I remember going with a health visitor to see several families in Redbridge in east London. I was shocked and appalled by what I saw at that time. The accommodation that many families were struggling to live in was absolutely appalling, and this was many years ago. The point that may be missing from this debate, and which probably has been made, is that we have a historical deficit of investment in social housing. Some of the things that have been said in support of what the Government are proposing might be all very well but we have a profound historical deficit in social housing. These families are unheard: none—or perhaps one or two—of us politicians come from that background. They are living in houses in multiple occupation and in damp, overcrowded conditions, and they get overlooked. They have been overlooked by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party: all parties will hold up their hands to that. That is a particular problem with what the Government are proposing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for supporting my amendment, among the others here. I will give one example of a mother to whom I spoke last week. She has four children. The eldest, I think, has a disability, but the youngest—a two year-old—experienced a haemorrhage while in his mother’s womb, and as a result was born with palsied arms and legs. He is blind and has hearing issues and, at two years old, is much smaller than he should be. The 10 year-old brother has ADHD and one other issue. As a consequence, she and her husband are both unable to work now; they are full-time carers for their children. She has been on the housing list for two years. She recently visited a house to look at it and found that there were 27 people higher up the housing list to look at it. She is living in three bedrooms with her husband and four children. From both her front and back doors, there are steps leading up, so as her youngest child grows bigger, it will become more and more difficult for her to enter and exit the house. So many families are like that: they are stuck with inappropriate housing because of the failure of successive Governments to provide sufficient social housing. I thank the Minister for her helpful reply and assurance earlier on.
Turning to my Amendment 48B in this group, its purpose is to ensure that a local authority, in relation to starter homes,
“must also ensure that there is an adequate supply of affordable homes in its area for … key workers; and … families requiring temporary accommodation”.
I have not spoken on the Bill yet, but I welcome much of what is in it, particularly with regard to streamlining the planning process—of which I have had experience—and many other areas. However, I am concerned—and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, alerted us to this—that in 2018, the Government will invest £2.3 billion in starter homes, self-build homes and other areas. However, from 2018 the funding for the sort of social housing that I have just described will be declining.
Not so long ago, I visited the University of East London, which is doing some work on the impact of homelessness on families. It highlighted to me that, all across London, the social housing stock is so severely depleted that it would take many, many years to replenish it. I understand the Government’s concerns, but the suffering of so many families in such appalling conditions really needs to be given priority.
In 2011, the OECD produced a report that found that a fifth of children in this country were growing up in a family without a father and a quarter of children in the United States were growing up without a father in the family. It predicted that in about 10 or 15 years, we would overtake the United States, and 30 % of our children would be growing up without a father in the family. Of course, living in temporary accommodation has an impact on the mental health of adults in those circumstances, and must have an impact on the parental relationships. I have just given that as one example of why we should be really concerned that so many of our children are growing up in hostels, temporary accommodation or bed and breakfasts. More than 100,000 children in this country are currently growing up in temporary accommodation.
I recently spoke to someone working on the troubled families initiative, a very welcome initiative from the Government. She told me how indignant she felt that she would make a relationship with a hard-to-reach family, begin to do some good work and then that family would be moved on elsewhere because they were living in temporary accommodation. They would very frequently move on.
I am particularly concerned by the growing information about families being moved out of London because of shortages here. Many years ago I visited the Families in Temporary Accommodation project run by John Reacroft at Barnardo’s and met many such families. Of the themes that came through, there was particularly that of isolation. So many families had been placed a long way from their community, friends and family. Now we see that families are placed far out of London and their local authority, and may well be moved on once more so become more and more isolated and separated. There are real reasons to be concerned about the increasing numbers of children growing up in temporary accommodation. I hope the Minister can offer some reassurance in her reply that that will be addressed. My other matter was to do with key workers. It is so important for these families that key workers can work close to them. That needs also to be kept much in mind.
The only thing I disagree with in what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said—if I understood him correctly—is that this is about housing supply rather than varieties of tenure. I strongly disagree with him there. There is a desperate need to increase housing supply within the particular tenure of affordable and social housing. That is a long-neglected area and the Government need to take that issue away and think about it.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 48F and 50B, to which I put my name. I am aware that in this debate we are going over the same ground we covered in the debate before the dinner hour but my excuse is that I will look at it from a largely rural perspective.
I must first declare an interest, for the purposes of the Committee stage of the Bill, in that I am a farmer and landowner. I am also a farmer who donated land to a housing association for the purposes of building affordable homes on an exception site in our village—half for rent and half for shared ownership. I believe that the latter is by far the best way to get people of limited means on to the housing ladder, especially when they can gradually staircase, within their means, up to an 80% maximum—which after all puts them in much the same position as a starter home owner without the distortion to the marketplace involved in the whole starter home programme.
I cannot endorse enough the Government’s ambition to build more homes and to help our young people into home ownership. I really hope that the starter homes initiative will provide the long-term beneficial solution that the Government’s faith in it deserves. As I said, shared ownership or shared equity is more of a proven route to me and, in my view, more worthy of government support. Thus, I support these two amendments because I worry about the overriding priority the Government are putting on the starter home agenda, as many noble Lords already said. In rural areas, that could mean that the requirement for truly affordable housing—housing for rent, shared ownership and supported housing—will take an inferior place, if any place at all.
The majority of properly affordable homes in rural areas come from commercial sites, usually in or on the edge of market towns, which have a percentage of affordable homes as a result of planning conditions—Section 106 agreements and so on. In my part of the world, this can be as high as between 20% and 35% or even higher, depending on local need and the site involved. You can imagine that a 200-house site, for instance, provides a vital supply of affordable houses. Without wishing to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, I would say that in my experience these planning conditions are usually arrived at as the result of a tripartite agreement between the developer, planners and a rural housing provider or housing association.
Before the Government compelled housing associations to reduce their rent by 12% over four years, the housing associations used to buy these affordable houses at virtually cost price. No one made any profit on these particular plots; the profit for both the landowner and developer came from the commercial housing on the rest of the site. Thus, the houses filled the need as cheaply as possible. Now, with the 12% reduction in rents, the sums do not quite add up for the housing associations, and I know of two examples where they are starting to ask the developer for a discount on these houses, below even the cost price. I have heard of discounts of up to £30,000 per house being asked for, although I have not heard of them being accepted.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, most of the relevant points have been made and I do not want to repeat what other noble Lords have said, but I have a simple question for the Minister.
Amendment 48A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, refers to the need to take into account,
“those over pension age, … those on below average incomes, and … those to whom it owes a statutory housing duty”.
Amendment 50, tabled by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, refers to an exemption requirement for housing for,
“younger people; … older people; … people with special needs; or …people with disabilities”,
or where there is a proposal to build,
“a homeless hostel; … refuge accommodation; or … specialist housing”.
We have, this evening, repeatedly heard the case that starter homes are to be given priority over everything else. How will those that I have just listed be protected in the new regime which the Government are promoting? In other words, how can we be assured that the groups referred to and embodied in those two amendments will be provided for under a system which gives priority to starter homes? If the Minister can answer that question, she will be able to answer most of the issues raised in this debate.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, we have had a long debate. Though I am reluctant to detain the Committee for too long, I want to speak in favour of these amendments, particularly Amendments 48A, 50B and 50D, to which I put my name. I again draw the Committee’s attention to my interest as chair of Housing & Care 21.
We have to ask the Government: are we in this together on housing? The need to build more homes is something we all agree on but I contest the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young. I accept that a commitment has been made in the Conservative Party manifesto; I respect that, although I do not think it is right and I have some suspicions as to how that figure was snatched out of the ether and arrived at. The question is whether we will build more homes than we would have without this extra policy initiative.
I think the Government have—certainly the Conservative Party has—a problem with social housing and affordable housing for rent. That is why we have had a setback. We had a problem in the early years of the coalition in getting the Government to put more money into social housing investment. It happened only when the Chancellor became worried about the state of the economy, as far as I could see. At that point, we at last saw some initiatives that encouraged the building of social housing.
As has been admitted in this debate, we have now gone backwards. If we were really setting out to build more houses we would be building more for private ownership and more for social housing. We had begun to make progress on that at the end of the coalition Government—not enough, I accept, but we had made some. Frankly, we are now going to hit the buffers because of all the initiatives and impetuses behind starter homes and the promotion of home ownership. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, starter homes will be at the expense of other forms of housing, and that will include social housing. The consequence is that we will build fewer houses than if we had really been in this together and planned to increase home ownership while maintaining a balance by being committed to social housing as well. As a consequence, there will be problems in terms of the design of homes and the communities we build, which will be lopsided and unbalanced. Future generations will come to regret that.
It has been made quite clear by the noble Lord, Lord Best, that there are other areas of need which the Government seem to be ignoring. We know that the retired population is increasing and we want to have more rightsizing. What initiatives will the Government use to encourage that process? Only this week, we have seen initiatives from the National Health Service, which recognises the importance of housing in health policy. I do not see where the Government will get the extra housing for the retired population.
It remains the case that homelessness is getting worse. I am sad to admit that it increased during the last years of the coalition. Which of these initiatives address that? Local communities should surely be given the flexibility to address some of those problems rather than go down a route that puts all the emphasis on home ownership. The other consequence will be that the people in real need will be driven into the private rented sector, which will compound our problem with the housing benefit bill because we will be paying out more.
I would also like to draw attention to the rural area, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, covered in his remarks. I cannot think of a more critical area where community needs have to be very carefully planned and provided for if we are going to have balanced communities which feed into the social life of those communities. We have to give more attention to providing affordable homes to local people—we need to make that distinction. As he says—and this is another argument that we are not actually going to increase the number of homes that are going to be built—I know that landlords in my area will be very reluctant to give up their land at a reduced price if they think that in the future people will have the opportunity to make a profit out of that, rather than what they thought, that these homes were going to be used for local people in perpetuity for their social needs and those of the communities in which they live.
Everybody agrees that there is a problem with supply. If we are going to build more homes that actually meet the demand we have, we need more diversity, mix and balance. As well as helping private ownership, we have to give more attention to social housing. If we do not, we will have all the problems I have mentioned in terms of increasing pressure on homelessness and the encouragement to older people to rightsize being diminished, and therefore we will end up with a worse and unbalanced housing situation, when there was a real opportunity for all of us to be in this together.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, we are all familiar with the concept of the starter homes project, which the Government launched with a great fanfare. It will, as we are now very familiar with, provide 200,000 affordable homes—I think that is the Government’s target—for first-time buyers aged under 40 who will benefit from a discount of 20%, which will not be repayable on a subsequent sale after five years. That is the basic concept.
Of course, the only criterion for obtaining the assistance and the discount to buy these starter homes will be age, not income. In London, for example, this could lead effectively to a handout on resale of more than £100,000 to the buyers of starter homes bought for the capped price of £450,000 after the discount—an untaxed £100,000 gain for the fortunate under-40s who secure a starter home. The Government fund all this with £2.3 billion, which represents just a part, as I mentioned before, of the housing benefit savings from the imposition of the 1% increase on social housing rents. The damage that that does to the social housing stock is, of course, studiously ignored.
Section 106 currently delivers half of all new affordable homes. Shelter describes it as being,
“especially vital to the delivery of new social rented homes, as grant funding for these homes was removed in the last Parliament”—
by, I remind your Lordships, a coalition Government—
“and funding for Affordable Rent ends in 2018”.
Of course, in the mean time we will have cuts to social rents, limiting housing associations’ ability to build new homes. Shelter research found, as we have heard, that starter homes are unaffordable to people on low incomes in 98% of the country and unaffordable to those on middle incomes in 58% of the country.
The claim is that affordable homes will thereby become available for purchase but clearly affordability is an elastic concept. The coalition Government drove up council rents, deeming an affordable rent in that context to be 80% of private sector rent levels. But given the chronic housing shortage and the boom in buy to let, which dramatically drove up prices and rents in the private sector, that definition of affordability is fundamentally flawed. Affordability must surely relate to what the would-be owner-occupier or tenant can reasonably be expected to pay, having regard to his or her income, not an artificial comparison to the market rate.
Prices, as we know, will be capped at £450,000 in London and £250,000 elsewhere after the 20% discount, representing, in effect, full market prices for these new properties of £562,500 in London and £312,500 elsewhere. However, the Government claim that the average price of starter homes for first-time buyers would, after the discount, be £291,000 in London and £169,000 elsewhere. Even at those levels—which are highly questionable, especially for London—starter homes will not be affordable for a huge number of people. In fact, the Government’s figures appear to be based on the average cost of houses bought by first-time buyers, not the average price of new houses, which would be higher.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, graphically described why we need more social housing in this country. For one thing, it is to help the very poorest in society. I fear that the Bill will do nothing to help those people. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and my noble friend Lord Beecham described how the buying of starter homes will essentially help only those who ultimately could have afforded to buy those homes on the open market anyway. It will merely exacerbate the growing inequality in our society. Until I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that element of growing inequality as a consequence of the Bill had not touched me too much. Now, I am thinking, “Oh my God! It is even more important that we do something about this Bill”. It is absurd that a housing Bill could add to the inequalities in this country.
In response to a consultation on proposed changes to the NPPF, the Gloucestershire Rural Housing Partnership said:
“Starter homes is a short-term attempt to implement a corrective measure to the housing market. It is unlikely to be sustainable or affordable for the Government in the long term and may not be attractive for all developers”.
It asks:
“Will demand for housebuilders’ standard first-time buyers product be negatively affected by starter homes production levels?”.
I would say that the promotion of new homes across all tenures would be a much more sustainable policy for the Government, housing associations, local councils, communities, individuals and the country as a whole.
Have the Government considered the impact if starter homes replace affordable housing on a huge number of new sites? There may be no Section 106 affordable rent or shared ownership homes provided by developers in future. Have the Government thought about that? My own housing association says:
“Developers’ appetite for starter home delivery remains to be seen, since it goes up against Help to Buy product, and developers like the fact that they can pre-sell affordable homes at a guaranteed price to a housing association, accounting for 30% or 40% of the total number of homes built on the site, giving them certainty of sale, less risk and a good cash flow”.
The Bill, as we have heard so many times, will ensure that starter homes come ahead of affordable homes in the provision of housing in future, yet surveys undertaken in Gloucestershire reveal that the majority of need in rural parishes is for affordable rented homes. As so many have said, if we want sustainable communities with shops, schools, pubs, et cetera, we have to have homes where people can live. Often, they cannot afford to buy them, so we have to have good social housing.
In 1980, 24% of rural homes were affordable. That figure is now 8%. That compares with 19% in urban areas—although of course I accept that the situation in London is very difficult, and very different. But I suggest that that difference between urban and rural areas, and the fact that the Government have not really taken that into consideration, demonstrates the fact that this Bill has sadly not been rural-proofed as it should have been, and as every piece of legislation should be.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
I support this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 48A, so well spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and supported by my noble friend Lord Beecham, and the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Stunell.
A few months back, the Minister took the House very skilfully through the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. She was extremely responsive to our concerns about the role of prescription in localism and the degree of powers that should be decentralised. We spoke a common language on this around the House on the need to devolve decision-making to the most local body that was competent to do so. That is what localism means—that is why the anti-Europeans in the Brexit group sign up to quite a lot of that position, I suspect. This amendment emphasises that point. The Minister is saying that the government, Westminster and Whitehall prescription of starter homes should be at the exclusion and displacement of any local understanding, knowledge and experience of the community. That is what the Government are saying.
Take, for example, my county of Norfolk. It is 60 miles across. Norwich has kept its own stock—then there is King’s Lynn and Great Yarmouth, as well as dozens and dozens of relatively small villages, going up to small market towns. I am time-expired as chair of a housing association that uniquely built across the whole of Norfolk. If I could have, I needed to build between six and a dozen bungalows in every rural village in Norfolk. I would have had every elderly person queuing around the block to downsize into a bungalow in their village. That would have freed up their family home, their rented housing association home or, possibly in some cases, their rented local authority home, for a young family in Norfolk, in a place that has low wages and is low-skilled, with incomes often well under £20,000 a year, often dependent on benefits to top them up. They would have been able to move into those homes and stay in their locality.
The result would have been twofold. First, those young families would have sustained the schools, which are declining in numbers, and the public transport, because those families cannot afford a car, or certainly not a second car, if he goes off to work in the old banger. It would have sustained GP surgeries, local shops and post offices. We would have kept rural Norfolk going. Secondly, those young families would have been living close to their elderly relatives. It would have allowed mums to help with the childcare and it would have allowed daughters and sons in turn to keep ageing parents out of long-term residential care by being close to them, neighbourly and supportive. That is the sort of community we have been talking about. What is going to happen? The Government are going to make that impossible.
Starter homes at these prices are irrelevant to all except immigrés, possibly coming into my former university or to a few very well-paid jobs at Norwich Union. The rest have low incomes, low skills and depend on social housing. Yet the housing that could have produced the chain that the noble Lord, Lord Best, talked about with two or three moves is not happening and the result is that villages will dwindle. This will mean young people having to move away from their homes and come into Norwich or move on further still to find jobs and homes. It will remove the support that enables elderly retired people to remain in those communities. As GP surgeries, pharmacies and post offices go into decline and close, they, too, will have to move because there will be no services.
That is what the Government are doing in this Bill and it is the extreme opposite of what the Minister skilfully, rightfully and generously argued on behalf of DCLG during the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill just a few months ago. Back then she would have been horrified at the notion that local authorities’ assessment of the needs for their areas for the elderly, for disabled people, for people on low incomes or for people to whom they owe a statutory duty, and their local knowledge of villages and small market towns across a county that is 60 miles long, should be overridden by people in Westminster and Whitehall, many of whom have not even visited the place. She would have been appalled in the name of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill that the next Bill she handled would run completely at odds and rip it up. She has had some brave but fairly futile defence from the noble Lord, Lord Young, but he has been about the only person since 3 pm today to speak in defence of the Government’s policy. I hope she takes this back to her department and says that if we are saying one thing about economic development and local determination, we cannot say exactly the opposite for the major part of economic development that is housing development. I hope that, as a result, she will understand just how angry so many of us feel that our communities are likely to be ripped apart by a housing policy which will make it impossible to build and stabilise them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I will address a number of amendments together. These are Amendment 37 from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham; Amendment 47 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Greaves; Amendments 48, 49 and 50 from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham; Amendment 48B from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel; Amendment 48A from the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Beecham, Lord Kerslake and Lord Stoneham; Amendment 48C from the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake, Lord Best and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell; Amendment 48F from the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Cameron, Lord Kerslake and Lord Beecham; Amendment 50B from the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Cameron, Lord Beecham and Lord Stoneham; and Amendment 50D from the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.
Together these amendments give me the opportunity to make clear that the Government are committed to increasing housing supply across all tenures. Earlier I stated that repeatedly and I went through the spending commitments of £4.1 billion for 175,000 shared-ownership homes, £1.6 billion for 100,000 affordable rented homes and £8 billion for 400,000 affordable homes, including £2.3 billion for the 200,000 starter homes. Taken together, the spending review will deliver a million new homes by 2021, and starter homes are at the heart of this new ambition for the reasons I have outlined. Home ownership is particularly out of the reach of this group of people. As part of this, we are doubling the investment in housing to more than £20 billion over the next five years to support the largest housing programme by any Government since the 1970s. We will build on our track record for housing delivery. More than 639,000 new homes have been built since April 2010. There are now 887,000 more homes in England than there were in 2009. That is fact, and that is what has been delivered over the past few years. Before noble Lords think that nothing but starter homes will be built, more council homes have been built since 2010 than in the 13 years up to 2010. An important statistic is that the number of new homes in England rose by 25% over the past year, which is the highest annual percentage increase in 28 years. For those who are in any doubt, that shows not only this Government’s commitment to building housing but their record over the past few years.
However, we know that we have to do more. These clauses are about something new: a new approach to address the pressing problem of young people and home ownership. There have been slight suggestions that in some places young people might not need to own homes. There has been a huge drop in the number of young people able to access home ownership. The Bill will help deliver our manifesto commitment and will place starter homes at the heart of new developments, which is a welcome addition to our growing package of support for future home owners.
As I said earlier, and as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham reiterated, 86% of people want to own their own home. As a Government, we should try to meet that aspiration. We need a radical shift in the way the housing market supports young first-time buyers.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Can I take the Minister back to the previous debate, where we were talking about the cost of mortgages and the price of houses? When she refers to £26,000, what does she actually mean? Some of us cannot really grasp what she is driving at, because when I looked up mortgages with a 20 or 25-year term, it was 40% of a post-tax £26,000 income. I relate that to what the Minister was saying.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
What I said earlier, and I am sorry if I did not articulate it terribly well, was that the average wage in this country is £26,000. For a couple on £26,000 each—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Each? First, the Minister emphasised “mean” rather than “median”. “Mean” means that three billionaires at the top end pull the figure up, whereas “median” has 50% below that figure. The median is the figure that we use in such debates. The median figure is considerably less than £26,000; it is probably nearer £24,000 for men, and for women it is under £21,000 a year, if they work full-time. The Minister is not offering us a representative figure.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, if I take both noble Lords’ figures, a median wage of £21,000 and £24,000 respectively, and add them together, that is £50,000 on a combined wage. Sorry—the hour is late—it is £45,000. On a combined salary of £45,000 and quoting £145,000 for a starter home, that would not be out of the median couple’s reach.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Minister is assuming that these households have two people working full-time. That does not follow. In my former constituency, that was certainly not the case.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I was simply giving an example of an average working couple. There are many households in which both people work.
Lord Campbell-Savours
This whole policy is predicated on the fact that both people are working. All the facts that we are being given all the time are based on two people working full-time.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I was simply giving an example of two people working within a household. It may well be that both people within a household do not work and one person is earning £45,000-plus. I was giving an average example, which I intended to be helpful to the Committee, but clearly I have confused everyone. However, I can write to noble Lords about median and average wages; this was simply trying to take the average couple on an average wage and apply that on a basis which I thought would be helpful to the Committee but which clearly was not terribly helpful.
Lord Campbell-Savours
So, basically, the point being made is that unless you both work full-time, you will not be able to buy one of these houses.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
No, my Lords, I was simply giving an example of a couple who work and who are on the average wage. Every single case is different; I was simply giving an average scenario. We can make all sorts of different assumptions—for example, about a scenario where one person works in the household and they earn £50,000, and so on—but I was simply giving the example of an average working couple.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, this might help the Minister. I think it is the case that the Government’s figures on what is a median income, and therefore the affordability of a starter home, are different from the figures given by a number of the other agencies—for example, Shelter—that are giving evidence to those engaged in this debate. It would be very helpful if the Minister could, before Report, write to noble Lords who have been engaged in this debate with a clear explanation of the figures which the Government are using to sustain their case.
Lord Kerslake
To add to that, it is not good enough simply to look at national averages on this issue. You absolutely need to see the figures broken down by region.
Lord Stunell (LD)
When the Minister writes, can she specifically say how many residents in Stockport, which is the borough in which I live, have the two full-time incomes to which she refers? That would be quite a handy ready reckoner for us as regards assessing the information she intends to give us.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, makes a very good point; for example, would it apply to Norfolk, where my noble friend lives? Whether it is one person or two people, they will not get to the £45,000 she is talking about.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right. We talked about shared ownership earlier on. It may well be the case when one person works and they are on the average or median wage—and by the way, I will write to clarify what might be the art of the possible borough by borough if necessary, which it sounds like I am on the way to doing. Of course, if you look at my borough, it is split down the middle as regards the demographic. I have completely lost my train of thought. It may be that other products such as a shared ownership scheme might be the most appropriate to somebody where the whole household earns the median wage. I was simply trying to illustrate this by an example and I am slightly regretting it now—but I will write to clarify this.
We need a radical shift in the way the housing market supports the young first-time buyer, otherwise we condemn a whole generation to uncertainty and insecurity. As I said earlier, over the last 20 years the proportion of 40 year-olds who own their own home has gone from 61% to 38%.
In specific response to Amendment 37, Clause 1 sets out our position clearly. This consistency of approach is important to ensure our reforms are widely understood, particularly by lenders and developers, and that delivery is maximised. Starter homes are a national priority and all local authorities must play their part in delivery. But as I made clear at Second Reading, and earlier this evening, they are just one part of the package of affordable housing options, and they will increase the choices available to those who wish to own their own home. There is a range of products available, and starter homes will be, rightly, part of that mix. We support the delivery of other tenures. We have funded the delivery of other tenures over this spending review period. But we do not believe that the amendment presented here will serve any useful purpose.
The noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Best and Lord Beecham, talked about the Savills and Shelter reports. We expect starter homes to be an entry-level property valued at below the average first-time buyer price for that local area by its very nature. But Savills and Shelter based their work on average house prices. We have examined the affordability of homes to those currently in the private rented sector. Assuming that those households sought to buy in the lower quartile of the first-time buyer market for new-build housing and moved within regions to areas where they can afford to buy, we found that outside London up to 64% of households currently renting privately would be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home, compared to only 50% who could now buy a similar property priced at full market value. Within London, up to 55% of households currently renting privately will be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home, while only 43% could now buy a similar property priced at full market value. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, does not believe me.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made a point about starter homes and increasing housing supply. We are designing our starter-home reforms to increase housing supply and not just to change tenures. We want the planning system to release more lands specifically for starter homes, for instance on underused brownfield land not allocated for housing. This is being supported by our £1.2 billion new starter homes land fund, which seeks to propose more brownfield sites for starter homes.
On Amendment 47, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Greaves, argued—in fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, did not speak; I am giving her credit when she is not here. The other noble Lords argued that the duty to support starter homes should extend to other types of affordable housing. Clause 3 expects councils to actively support starter homes as a new product in their housing mix. It does not remove the ability to deliver other affordable housing alongside starter homes. Nor does it remove their local planning policy. I expect that most councils will continue to support delivery of a range of affordable housing and have planned policies to help achieve this.
Councils are very aware of their commitments to meet local housing needs, and they will strive to meet these needs. That plays into the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about support for localism other than the duty to provide for starter homes. The Government completely recognise that local councils will be very keen to support delivery of the range of housing products available according to their local needs.
The Government’s record on affordable housing delivery is strong. There were 193,000 affordable homes delivered in England between 2011 and 2015, exceeding the Government’s target by 23,000. In addition, councils are in a position to bring forward more land for affordable housing. More council housing has been built since 2010, as I said, than was built in the previous 13 years, and 2014 saw the highest number of council housing starts for 23 years.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Does the Minister dispute the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, gave, that in 2018 this will dramatically drop? The reason is that these were decisions of the coalition Government, and therefore there is a question mark over the continued commitment to these building levels under this Government.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, given that some of the figures I have quoted are over the last year, it is possibly slightly stretching the point to say that it was coalition delivery rather than ours, but I am not going to argue at this hour of the night about who can take the credit for what. We have doubled investment in housing.
Baroness Grender
It is not about credit, but about the drop-off point in 2018 and whether there is a continued commitment to building affordable social housing.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the money is in the Budget. Affordable homes for rent are grant funded. Contrary to what one might think, they will be the first, not the last, to be built out because they are grant funded. They effectively act as pump-priming money for developers to build. I do not agree with that point.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I think the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, made was that this was money agreed in 2015 that covered 2015 to 2018. The noble Baroness said that the money is in the Budget. Is she saying that there is money available for future years? Is that correct, or are we talking about money that will finish in 2018 and we will then decide what will happen post that?
Lord Kerslake
Perhaps I may say a few more words. The way the process works for affordable housing is that there is a bidding process through housing associations, which bid in effect in 2014-15 for the funding for a programme from 2015 to 2018. That is how they bid. What we are seeing now between 2015 and 2018 is essentially the completion of a programme that was bid for and allocated largely prior to the election. If noble Lords look at the numbers for the last Budget—this is all in the public domain—they will see that the grant funding beyond the 2015 to 2018 programme, which effectively was committed, ends, or largely ends apart from specialist housing. That was the point I was making. There is no continuation of that policy beyond what was already bid for and largely allocated.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord. That is a very interesting point. I am sure we will return to it when we consider the rest of the Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Would the noble Lord like me to respond to that point? I am sorry, I have slightly lost track of who I am responding to. I will carry on and noble Lords can interrupt me if I have not covered something.
It is clear that starter homes are a new product and will provide genuine opportunities for young first-time buyers to gain a secure position on the housing ladder. We want councils to really get behind delivery. For this reason, we want the duty to focus on starter home delivery. We expect this duty on councils to encompass a wide set of activities, such as working with neighbourhood planning groups on starter home delivery and identifying exception sites for starter homes. The Secretary of State will issue guidance setting out what councils should do to meet this, which they must have regard to.
Lord Stunell
May I take the Minister a little further on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, made? If there was a defect in the coalition Government’s housing policy, which I would be reluctant to concede, it would be that that Government failed in their first year to initiate a programme of social and public housing quickly enough. Will the Minister take back to the department the fear that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and I share, that that mistake is being repeated? No doubt in a period of time the Government will reflect that they need to restart that programme and ensure that it continues beyond 2018. It is a question of learning from experience, which I very much hope this Government and the Minister will be willing to do.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will certainly take the noble Lord’s point back. Our affordable homes funding is front-loaded, as we want to continue our strong tradition of delivering affordable homes for lower-income families. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, will recall that our previous affordable homes programme overdelivered by 23,000, totalling 193,000 affordable homes delivered in England between 2011 and 2015. From 2018 onwards there will be substantial further funding going into the system through receipts from right to buy and the sale of vacant, high-value assets to generate additional homes for every one sold.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate today. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made some very important points about us all being in policy silos. That has been demonstrated by the discussions we have had in the debate this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, and others, talked about the NPPF guidance, the starter home obligations and the resultant conflict which needs to be addressed very seriously by the Government. There is clearly a conflict and that cannot be right, and it will not be sustainable. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to what is happening in Chichester. I had a look at the article he referred to. It went on to say that from 30% affordable housing it moved to 50% starter homes, no affordable housing, no nomination rights and no local connections—not all good news, I suggest.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, spoke about the overriding nature of the starter-home proposals in relation to other housing tenures and how this will replace much-needed social rented housing. There are real issues there about what will happen in future years, as we heard earlier. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about people living in poor housing accommodation. I must say that that reminded me of my parents’ excitement when they got the letter from Southwark Council saying that we were going to be rehoused. I was about nine years old and we lived in some quite poor, damp, unsuitable property. We moved to a clean, warm, dry, safe—and, I must say, large—council flat. I am the eldest of four children. I had my own bedroom and no longer had to share with my brother. We were both delighted and the lives of the whole family improved just by moving to that new property.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, raised the important point about rising homelessness and also the increasing housing benefit bill with more homes being in the private rented sector. My noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon highlighted the importance of good social housing as part of a proper mix and the particular challenge in rural areas, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. My noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham set out with her usual skill how a successful local policy on housing, properly planned and delivered, can have enormous benefits and deliver the stable communities and economic benefits that we all want to see.
This has been an interesting and useful debate, and I hope that the Minister can take back to the department our deep concern at these proposals. I hope that she will reflect fully on this debate but also on the other debates we have had today. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I wonder, having regard to other affordable issues such as affordable transport for members of the staff, whether it might be possible just to refer over the next two minutes to some information from Savills which may be relevant to our further discussions. I gather that a penny or two has dropped with the Minister.
In one of its many contributions to the debate, Savills said that as it currently stands, the biggest concern is that the starter homes policy could distort a new-home sale market without significantly increasing the number of new homes delivered overall. It explained that there was a risk that starter homes could cannibalise help-to-buy sales as well as existing open-market sales aimed at first-time buyers. Furthermore, Savills states that the classification of starter homes as a form of affordable housing under planning rules, and the duty on local authorities to promote the supply of starter homes, is likely to result in fewer homes being delivered for what is currently classified as an affordable tenure. It therefore expects to see fewer homes delivered for affordable rent.
Given the lack of detail released, it is not clear what the interaction would be between shared ownership and starter homes. Perhaps as we go forward into subsequent debates about this proposal, the Minister could give a clear indication of the detail behind these schemes. It appears that there is a clear overlap between parts of the market likely to be served by Help to Buy, starter homes and shared ownership, particularly in London. We have not heard anything as yet about Help to Buy, and the relationship of this new scheme to that and the possible impact on Help to Buy. There seems to be some thinking that the two might merge. That is a matter that perhaps the Minister might consider, either in writing or in subsequent debate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank my noble friend. I was getting a bit nervous there; I thought he was going to intervene on me, but we are a good double act. Having said that, I think it has been a very good debate this evening. I hope that the Minister will look at this issue very carefully because it will almost certainly come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.